Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Harwich Harbour [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

FORFAR CORPORATION WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Forfar Corporation Water," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CAIRO CAVALRY BRIGADE (COMMAND).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War

whether the officer recently appointed to command the Cairo cavalry brigade was selected by the Selection Committee; and how many senior officers were passed over by his appointment?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes, Sir." It is not possible to answer the second part of the question until this officer assumes his appointment in September next. Briefly, he will pass over all lieutenant-colonels, both substantive and brevet, now senior to him, but no one of these officers superseded is prejudiced in regard to any further promotion or appointment except in so far as this particular appointment has been filled.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that this officer has been recommended for accelerated promotion for some time and that in the regiment to which he belongs they are delighted, from the colonel downward, that he has been selected for this appointment?

Sir A. Knox: Is my hon. Friend quite sure that none of the other commanding officers of cavalry units—about 25 of them—is ready for promotion?

Sir V. Warrender: This appointment carries no reflection upon them whatever.

RECRUITS (CHARACTERS).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War how Andrew Vanderberg, aged 37, and Reginald Kaye, aged 16, were accepted as recruits in the Army in view of their age and previous criminal record?

Sir V. Warrender: In both cases characters were obtained in accordance with the Recruiting Regulations, neither of them disclosing any suggestion that the men had been in trouble during the periods covered by the characters. Vanderberg appears to have been well conducted since his return to England from Canada, where he had, as it now appears, served in the Canadian Forces under another name.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not possible to tighten up this character test for men desirous of obtaining enlistment, in view of the fact that respectable serving soldiers bitterly resent the enlistment of men of this type, as it gives the Army a bad name?

Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir; precautions are taken to verify references and characters where it is thought desirable, and certain instructions are issued.

Mr. Mabane: Will my hon. Friend deal with that part of the question which refers to age?

Sir V. Warrender: It is the fact that both these men gave false ages. Vander-berg stated his age to be 26, and Kaye said that his age was 18.

Brigadier-General Brown: Will not my hon. Friend stop this policy of recruiting "at any price," and see to it that when recruiting men of the age of 26 or 27, the Army recruiting office should at least get their characters before sending them to join a regiment, as would be done in the case of other professions?

Mr. Thurtle: Do not both these cases show the desirability of the War Office insisting upon the production of birth certificates?

Sir V. Warrender: It may be true to say that, in this particular case, neither of these men would have got into the Army if birth certificates had been required of them, but it must not be forgotten that, if we were to introduce a system for the production of birth certificates before attestation, several thousand men of excellent character would be lost to the Army annually.

PAY OFFICES (STAFF).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War why no extra staff has been employed in the pay offices of the Royal Army Pay Corps, in view of the increase in work due to the recent increase in pay and marriage allowances; and whether any extra mechanical assistance is employed or will be employed in the offices?

Sir V. Warrender: This work, which has to be completed by the end of this month, is of such a nature that it can be performed only by experienced staff, and the addition of unskilled labour would, therefore, be of no assistance. The staffs of regimental pay offices have been augmented as far as possible by personnel who have recently completed their training at the School of Instruction and by the temporary diversion of staff from offices not affected by the increases.

Some additional mechanical assistance is being employed for the purpose of giving effect to the changes.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in fact, a great deal of overtime is being worked, and will he indicate how long the overtime is likely to continue?

Sir V. Warrender: I should like notice of that question.

GUNNER'S DEATH, WOOLWICH (DEPENDANTS).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement concerning Gunner George James Weston, Royal Artillery, who has died as a result of taking part in physical exercises at Woolwich barracks; and whether any payment to the next of kin of the deceased will be made in consequence of this accident?

Sir V. Warrender: Gunner Weston was for his own recreation practising physical exercises when he unfortunately suffered a fatal accident. His death is regarded as attributable to military service and his next-of-kin will, on their application, be considered for an award of dependants' pension, if eligible under the provisions of the Royal Warrant for the pay, etc., of the Army.

COURTS-MARTIAL COMMITTEE.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army and Air Force Courts Martial Committee has held any meetings; and what steps are being taken to ensure that the evidence received by the committee shall be comprehensive?

Sir V. Warrender: As regards the first part of the question, the committee has already held two meetings. As regards the second part, I understand that the committee is anxious to obtain all shades of opinion. Any person wishing to produce suggestions for the improvement of the courts-martial system should write direct to the Secretary of the committee at the War Office. Whilst all constructive proposals will be welcome, I would remind hon. Members that the committee is not concerned to review individual cases.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the committee taking any steps to obtain evi-


dence regarding courts-martial procedure in other countries?

Sir V. Warrender: I would rather like to have notice of that question.

WARRANT OFFICERS, CLASS III.

Mr. Day: (for Mr. Ede) asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be in a position to make a statement as to the new establishment necessitated for units by the creation of the rank of warrant officer, Class III?

Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend will give the House this information at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

EMPLOYÉS (FACILITIES).

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to encourage employers of labour who are prepared to offer Territorials two weeks for camp with pay, made up to their standard rates, in addition to a week's holiday on pay, he will grant such firms the right to use the proposed Territorial badge on their letter headings, as in the case of the King's National Roll?

Sir V. Warrender: While my right hon. Friend fully recognises the public spirit of those employers who give facilities of this kind to their employes, he finds, on examination, that a scheme on the lines suggested in the question discloses many difficulties. It would mean fixing a minimum percentage of employés in the Territorial Army as a qualification, like the 5 per cent. for the King's Roll. The number of disabled men, covered by the King's Roll scheme, serving under any one employer is usually fairly constant, but the number of employés serving in the Territorial Army necessarily varies widely from time to time, as the men are younger, and change their employment more frequently. Many remain only four years in the Territorial Army. It will be seen, therefore, that to confine the badge to employers who at the time had a given percentage of employés in the Territorial Army would involve fairly frequent removal of names from the roll, as numbers fell below the qualifying figure. The small employer would also find it disproportionately difficult to qualify for

the roll, and to maintain his place on it. In addition, many other considerations arise which outweigh the advantages to be gained from such a scheme.

RECRUITS.

Mr. Day: (for Mr. Ede) asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the men included in the figures of recruits to the Territorial Force, during the period 1st November, 1937, to 31st March, 1938, had had previous service with the armed or auxiliary forces of the Crown?

Sir V. Warrender: The percentage figure is10.8.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions it is anticipated that the attendance at the Glasgow Exhibition will be such as to warrant an increase in the maximum number of 22 officers available for duty at any one time; and whether he can give an assurance that officers will not be withdrawn for this purpose from other parts of the city, in view of the fact that both the chief constable of Glasgow and the police committee are of opinion that the city is already under-policed?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): It is not possible to make the forecast referred to by my hon. Friend in the first part of the question; and, as regards the second part, I am not in a position to give him the assurance desired.

Mr. Erskine Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will arrange with the Exhibition authorities to give special facilities to school children in Scotland to enable as many as possible to visit the Exhibition; and whether, with that object in view, special holidays can be given?

Mr. Elliot: A circular on this matter was sent to education authorities and other managers of schools on 29th March, 1938, and I am sending my hon. and learned Friend a copy. I have also written a personal letter to the Convener of the Administrative Committee of the Exhibition inviting the sympathy and co-operation of the Exhibition authorities. I understand from him that everything


possible is being done to facilitate the attendance of school children, and that, among other arrangements, certain schools are being made available by Glasgow Education Authority, so far as circumstances permit, for the accommodation of children coming from a distance.

SCAFFOLD ACCIDENT, GLASGOW.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cause of the accident in Buchanan Street, Glasgow, on Tuesday last, where three people were injured?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the accident referred to was due to the collapse of a scaffold and that two of the three persons injured have died. A public inquiry in regard to the cause of the deaths and the circumstances of the accident will fall to be held, and I cannot therefore make any further statement.

SCHOOL CHILDREN, INVERNESS-SHIRE.

Mr. Erskine Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of children attending schools administered by the education authority of the county of Inverness for the years 1914, 1927, and 1937, respectively?

Mr. Elliot: The average numbers on the roll for the years referred to were 14,309, 13,067 and 12,936 respectively.

Mr. Erskine Hill: In view of the steady decrease in population that that shows, will my right hon. Friend take every possible step, whether by encouraging industry or agriculture, to improve the population of the Highlands?

Mr. Elliot: I will take every step that I am allowed to take.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (RENFREWSHIRE).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in course of being made in connection with air-raid precautions for a complete or partial black-out in Renfrewshire, including Greenock, or any part of the said area?

Mr. Elliot: I have no information concerning arrangements for a black-out in the area in question. The initiative for making such arrangements rests with the local authorities. Accordingly if it is desired to hold a black-out in any particular area, arrangements should be made through the local authorities.

Mr. Gibson: If such arrangements are being made and they come before the right hon. Gentleman, will he keep in mind that from 3rd May onwards a great many people will be returning home to Greenock from the Empire Exhibition, and will he steer clear of that time?

Mr. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made for the provision of storage accommodation for gas masks by local authorities in Renfrewshire; and when such provision will be complete?

Mr. Elliot: A Memorandum was issued on 4th April, 1938, to local authorities by the Air-Raid Precautions Department for their information in preparing their schemes for storage and distribution of respirators. No proposals have yet been received from the local authorities in Renfrewshire.

EDINBURGH ROYAL BLIND ASYLUM.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a complaint made by the National League of the Blind against the action of the managing committee of the Edinburgh Royal Blind Asylum in entering into arrangements for the training of sighted apprentices; and whether he will represent to the institution in question that money voted for the blind should not be expended in the training of sighted persons, especially in view of the fact that when the training is completed there is no guarantee that the trainees. will remain in the institution as instructors?

Mr. Elliot: Sighted workers are employed in the basket-making department of the Edinburgh Royal Blind Asylum, as in other institutions, to instruct or supervise the blind workers, and to do, certain work, especially the fine work, which is unsuitable for the blind. I am informed that the directors of the asylum were unable to obtain trained sighted basket workers to replace those about to, retire, and that they decided to take on not more than three sighted apprentices to be trained in basket making. The expenditure on this arrangement is met entirely from the voluntary funds over which I have no control. No part of the Government grant is utilised for the training of sighted apprentices.

Mr. Mathers: In view of the fact that public money does go into this institu-


tion and that there must inevitably be some effect upon it by what is being done here, will not the right hon. Gentleman inquire further into this matter, and into other matters relating to the management of the Royal Blind Asylum in Edinburgh? I am informed that there is a necessity for such an inquiry.

Mr. Elliot: I understand that they have great difficulty in getting trained workers for this job.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Cassells: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons at the last convenient date in receipt of old age pensions who have received public assistance within the County of Dumbarton; and the number of those persons who are married but whose wives are not entitled to a pension?

Mr. Elliot: The number of persons in the County of Dunbarton in receipt of old age pensions and of poor relief at 15th November, 1937, the latest date for which figures are available, was 735. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the question is not available.

HOUSING.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give any estimate of the comparable figures of the cost of repairs in the classes of houses in Scotland affected by the Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Acts for the years 1914, 1920, 1930, and 1937, respectively?

Mr. Elliot: The majority report of the Marley Committee estimated the comparative cost of repairs as 100 in 1914; 250–280 in 1920; and 180–200 in 1930. The majority report of the Ridley Committee indicated that in 1937 the position was substantially the same as in 1930. Further examination tends to show that in Scotland at any rate the cost of repairs in 1937 was slightly higher than in 1930.

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given me the English figures, and that I asked for the Scottish figures?

Mr. Elliot: The last sentence of my reply was that further examination tends to show that in Scotland the cost of re-

pairs in 1937 was slightly higher than in 1930.

Mr. Johnston: I asked the right hon. Gentleman for the Scottish figures for certain years, and he has not given them.

PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, DUMBARTON.

Mr. Westwood: (for Mr. Kirkwood) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is proposed to accommodate physically and mentally deficient children in the same building in the College Street School, Dumbarton; if so, is he satisfied that this arrangement is in conformity with the policy laid down by the Scottish Education Department; and what arrangements will be made for keeping the two classes of children separate?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. This arrangement is in accord with the terms of paragraph 26 of the Department's Circular No. 105 dated 1st September, 1937, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. As to the last part of the question, arrangements will be made to keep the two classes of children separate in all respects—class tuition, meals and recreation.

Mr. Muff: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a condition of things would not be tolerated in England, and will he endeavour to bring Scotland up to the standard of England?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. It is the common practice in England and Wales and Scotland to provide on the same site, and in many cases under the same roof, a school for mentally defective children as well as physically defective children.

Mr. Muff: But not in Yorkshire.

Mr. Westwood: Even though that may have been done by certain education authorities in the alleged interests of economy, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is desirable in the interests either of education or of the children?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir; indeed, that was recommended in the Circular issued by the Department to the authorities.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that mental deficiency demands special treatment and that special


buildings are required, and will he arrange for visitors to the Empire Exhibition to see how they are treating these children in Dumbarton?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ACCIDENT, ADVENTURE COLLIERY, DURHAM.

Mr. Ritson: asked the Secretary for Mines the result of inquiries as to the accident to John McKitten at Adventure Colliery, Durham; and whether he is satisfied that adequate protection is afforded to workmen undertaking such work?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): As a result of inquiries into this accident, I am referring the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider prosecution. I have also given instructions that the colliery is to be subjected to a very detailed examination by His Majesty's inspectors.

PRICES (CO-ORDINATION).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines what progress has been made by the Central Council of Coalowners with regard to the co-ordination of prices between the various coal-producing districts?

Captain Crookshank: I am informed that the work of the committee set up by the Central Council to deal with the question of inter-district co-ordination of prices and conditions of sale is progressing and that, in the meantime, work with regard to co-ordination of prices is being carried out by means of meetings between groups of districts throughout the country.

Mr. Smith: Can the hon. and gallant Member say when finality is likely to be reached on this matter?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir.

STATISTICS.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Secretary for Mines the output of coal, the quantity exported, and the average declared value per ton f.o.b. in Great Britain and South Wales and Monmouthshire, respectively, in 1937?

Captain Crookshank: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The quantity of saleable coal raised in Great Britain during 1937 was 240,409,436 tons. The quantity of coal exported was 40,352,288 tons and its average declared value per ton fo.b. 18s. 8d. The corresponding figures for South Wales and Monmouthshire were 37,773,013 tons, 16,228,412 tons and 20s. 6d. respectively.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal consumed in this country and the amount per head of the population in 1937?

Captain Crookshank: The quantity of coal available for consumption in Great Britain in the year 1937 was 181,804,000 tons. The consumption of coal per head of population was 79 cwts.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Secretary for Mines the sum paid by British coal mines in rents, royalties and wayleaves in 1937?

Captain Crookshank: During the year 1937 the estimated amount paid by colliery owners in Great Britain in royalties and wayleaves (including the rental value of freehold mineral where worked by the proprietor) was £5,372,000.

WORKERS (UNDERGROUND CONVEYANCE).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines to what extent the underground conveyance of men to their work is in operation; and will he have this question examined, so that when men have to travel long distances this method can be adopted?

Captain Crookshank: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 9th November last.

Mr. Tinker: That answer was given six months ago, and nothing has been done. What we want to know is when we are likely to get the report of the Commission on this matter?

Captain Crookshank: That is another question, and I answered it the other day that I could not give a date.

EXHALL COLLIERY.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will make a statement concerning the closing down of Exhall colliery; how many men have been thrown out of work by the closing down; and what prospect there is of their obtaining employment?

Captain Crookshank: I am informed that the closing of this colliery is due to economic reasons. The normal complement of men employed there has been 690 underground and 250 on the surface, but at present the numbers are 150 and 40 respectively. I understand that the whole colliery will be probably closed by July. With regard to the last part of the question, there is reason to hope that a considerable number of the men concerned may be offered employment at neighbouring collieries.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the hon. and gallant Member give some explanation of the phrase used in the reply that the closing of the pit has been due to the "economic situation?"

Captain Crookshank: I said "economic reasons." I think that is a perfectly normal connotation.

Mr. Holdsworth: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether the colliery will be able to pay dividends by selling its quota, and not producing coal?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN POLICY (DOMINIONS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will publish the terms of the communication from New Zealand expressing disagreement with the foreign policy of the British Government; and how many of the other Dominions have expressed the same view?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): It would not be in accordance with practice to publish the terms of communications which pass between the Governments of the British Commonwealth of Nations regarding foreign policy, but I can assure the hon. Member that no communication has been received from the Government of New Zealand or any other Dominion expressing disagreement with the general policy in foreign affairs being pursued by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mander: Is it not quite well known to the Government that the Government of New Zealand is out of sympathy——

Mr. Speaker: rose——

Mr. Mander: I am asking whether I may be permitted to put a supplementary arising out of my original question?

Mr. Mabane: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the terms of this question?

Mr. Speaker: I did not like the hon. Member using the term "quite well known to the Government," in putting a supplementary question.

Mr. Mander: May I put it in another way? May I ask whether any communications have been received——

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that there have been no such communications.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the hon. Member think this is a contribution to Empire unity?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (NAZI ACTIVITIES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the discovery by a recent commission of inquiry in South Africa of secret documents showing that pressure is being put upon the Nazi organisation of South Africa from Germany to strengthen its activities; whether the Union Government of South Africa has made known its intention of publishing the secret documents; and whether steps will be taken to secure a copy for the information of Members of this House?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind certain documents quoted in the report of the South-West Africa Commission, which was published by the Union Government in 1936. I am arranging for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Member also arrange to have General Smuts's recent speech included?

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE (CIVIL AVIATION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what communi


cations have passed between the British Government and the Government of Eire on the subject of the removal of the railway clearing-house ban on Irish Sea Airways, a line flying between Great Britain and Eire; and what are the political aspects of the question referred to in the Cadman Report on Civil Aviation which are preventing a satisfactory solution?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The question of arrangements to resolve the difficulties which have arisen is still under discussion, and it is hoped that a satisfactory solution will be found at an early date.

Mr. Mander: Can we have some information as to what these political differences are? No information at all has been supplied up to the present.

Mr. MacDonald: I am not prepared to make a statement at the moment, because the matter is still under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (JUVENILE LABOUR).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what particulars he has of the approximate number of native juveniles in Southern Rhodesia, under the age of 14 years, who have entered into contracts of service; and what is the average age of these persons?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The information for which the hon. Member asks is not available in the Dominions Office, but I am asking the Government of Southern Rhodesia for the particulars, and will communicate them to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Member say whether children are allowed to accept contracts of employment under the age of ten years in Rhodesia?

Mr. MacDonald: The policy of the Government is that they should not be allowed to enter into contract under the age of ten years.

Mr. Macquisten: Are not most of these children engaged as nurses or pantry boys, and love their occupation?

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA (ASSISTED MIGRATION).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will make representations to the Canadian Government whereby a larger number of British people may be admitted to that Dominion, in order that they may be absorbed into the agricultural and industrial life of that Dominion?

Mr. M. MacDonald: At the time of the Imperial Conference last year it was indicated that the Canadian Government felt that the time had not arrived when they were in a position to co-operate with the United Kingdom Government in the resumption of Government-assisted migration. Since then nothing has occurred to give me reason to believe that the position in this respect has altered.

Mr. Day: Have these regulations been recently made to link up the trend of emigrants?

Mr. MacDonald: I am not quite certain what the hon. Member has in mind. Certain changes have taken place regarding emigrants to Australia, but nothing has occurred in the case of Canada.

Mr. Macquisten: Are there not a lot of people who we wish would emigrate?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BALANCE OF TRADE.

Colonel Nathan: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of the visible adverse balance of payments to the latest convenient date, and the comparative figures for last year?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): The excess of imports over exports of merchandise during the first two months of this year amounted to £71,600,000, compared with £57,600,000 in the corresponding period of 1937.

SUBSIDIES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

Sir Granville Gibson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what countries grant subsidies in respect of their exports; and which countries have in operation special import restrictions on goods assisted by subsidies?

Captain Wallace: I regret that such information as I have in regard to the first part of this question does not lend itself to compression within the compass of a Parliamentary answer. As regards the second part, measures directed specifically against subsidised imports are in operation in the United States of America and the Union of South Africa; and certain other countries have taken power to take action against such imports.

Sir G. Gibson: Is there any reason why the Government should not take similar steps in cases where countries subsidise imports into this country to such an extent as more than to offset, in many cases, the import duties which were imposed by the Government some time ago?

Captain Wallace: There is a variety of reasons, but I do not think they can be given in a reply to a Parliamentary Question.

STEEL WORKS, JARROW.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any explanation to make of the delay in regard to the site of the Jarrow steel works; and what party to the agreements is responsible for the hold-up?

Captain Wallace: Although all the details connected with the purchase of the site have not yet been settled, representatives of the Commissioner and of the promoters of the steel works scheme have, in the meantime, entered on the site by arrangement with the owners and I do not think that there has been any avoidable delay.

Miss Wilkinson: Does not the Minister realise that it is now very nearly a year since the Government intimated that this scheme was to be started, that we are very little further forward than we were then, that the continual statements of the Minister that men are being employed is proved to be inaccurate, and that there are only 65 men employed there now, and is there not some hold-up somewhere? May we have an explanation, in view of the importance of this matter?

Captain Wallace: I agree that it is important, but I do not think there has been any avoidable delay. It is very difficult to carry through an arrangement of this kind. A great many people are

concerned in it; for instance, the company that is to be formed, the Commissioner and the present owners.

Miss Wilkinson: Can the Minister say——

Mr. Speaker: rose——

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the great importance of this matter to the people of Jarrow and the evasive answers of the Minister concerned, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

IMPORTED IRON AND STEEL BOLTS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the Order-in-Council requiring imported door bolts of iron or steel to hear an indication of origin, he will make provision for the name of the country where the bolts are made being incorporated in any such indication?

Captain Wallace: The Order to which the hon. Member refers was made on 1st April, under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926. There is no power under that Act to require that any necessary indication of origin should include the name of the country where the goods were produced or manufactured.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the Minister aware that all hon. Members are very anxious to have the name of the country from which these articles come, and can he not make an alteration in the Order?

Captain Wallace: That matter was very fully discussed at the time of the passing of the Act, and there is a number of reasons on the other side, which again would be too numerous to give in reply to a Parliamentary Question. The hon. Member must not assume that there are not advantages to this country in the present procedure.

Mr. Thorne: If there are good reasons and if there are good intentions, these things can be overcome.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it not the case that the party opposite opposed the Bill when it was before Parliament?

FOREIGN BOTTLED BEER (DUTY).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a very large quantity of Danish lager beer is now imported into


this country in bottle, and that in consequence very little labour is employed in this country in connection therewith, and that the bottles subsequently compete with British bottles: and whether, in these circumstances, he will review the effectiveness of the duty upon foreign lager beer?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): With regard to the first part of the question, I am aware that some Danish lager beer is imported in bottle, though official information is not available as to the proportion of the total imports which is so imported; I understand that as a rule the bottles are returnable to the brewers abroad. With regard to the second part, I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

EMPIRE EXHIBITION (ADVERTISEMENT STAMP).

Sir Douglas Thomson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will arrange that Government Departments shall affix an Empire Exhibition stamp to official correspondence in order to ensure the widest possible publicity to the Empire Exhibition?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the Postmaster-General has already made special arrangements by which many millions of letters are now being stamped with an advertisement of the Exhibition. This will give far wider publicity to the Exhibition than would the affixing of a special stamp to official correspondence, the great bulk of which is between the Departments themselves and has, therefore, no publicity value. I think, therefore, that the scheme to which I have referred will achieve the object which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Sir D. Thomson: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he will, bring this matter before the Overseas Trade Department, as many firms abroad, so far as their principals are concerned, do not open their envelopes and, therefore, do not see the postmark?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I can only answer for the Departments generally. Perhaps my hon. Friend will take up the question with the Department concerned.

WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).

Mr. Riley: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences for the export of war material from this country to China and Japan respectively, have been issued since 1st July, 1937, to the nearest available date, and the approximate total value of such exports in each case?

Captain Wallace: The licences issued since 1st July, 1937, for the export of war material from the United Kingdom destined for China and for Japan numbered respectively 19 and 8. The total value of the arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores registered as consigned from the United Kingdom to China from 1st July, 1937, to 28th February, 1938, was £183,000, and the corresponding value for Japan was £61,000.

Mr. Riley: In view of the fact that Japan has been declared to be an aggressor against a member of the League of Nations, will not His Majesty's Government consider the advisability of granting no licence for Japan at all?

Captain Wallace: I would refer the hon. Member to a question on exactly the same subject which I answered on Monday.

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not the case that a major portion of the war material being used by China comes from German sources?

Mr. Gibson: (for Mr. Anderson) asked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been issued in the last six months for armaments for export and to what countries they have been consigned?

Captain Wallace: During the six months ended 31st March, 1938, 207 licences have been issued for the export of war material to 32 foreign countries. With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the countries concerned.

Following is the list:

Statement showing the foreign countries of destination for which licences for the export of war material have been granted during the six months ended 31st March, 1938.

Afghanistan.
Mexico.


Argentina.
Netherlands.


Belgium.
Netherland East


China.
Indies.


Colombia.
Norway.


Denmark.
Poland.



Egypt.
Portugal.


Estonia.
Roumania.


Finland.
San Salvador.


Greece.
Saudi Arabia.


Honduras.
Soviet Union.


Iran.
Sweden.


Iraq.
Switzerland.


Italy.
Turkey.


Japan.
United States of America.


Latvia.



Lithuania.
Yugoslavia.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH OVERSEAS INVESTMENTS.

Colonel Nathan: asked the President of the Board of Trade what he estimates to be the amount and nature of foreign investments held in this country at the latest convenient date, and the comparative figure for 1914?

Captain Wallace: According to estimates made by Sir Robert Kindersley, the nominal amount of British capital invested overseas at the end of 1936, the latest date for which particulars are available, was £764,000,000. As regards the nature of these investments and the qualifications to be attached to the estimate, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Sir Robert Kindersley's article in the "Economic Journal" for December, 1937. Comparable figures for 1914. are not available, but it has been estimated that British oversea investments in 1913 amounted to approximately £4,000,000,000.

Colonel Nathan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman able to distinguish between foreign investments, as stated in the question, and overseas investments?

Captain Wallace: I am afraid that is all the information I can give without notice.

Colonel Nathan: May I ask whether, in view of the desirability and importance in the case of certain eventualities of this country being possessed of a large amount of the foreign currency available to it, steps will be taken by the Government to relax the present restrictions on foreign lending?

Captain Wallace: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to communicate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to taxing overseas investments and getting another source of revenue?

Oral Answers to Questions — CARGO VESSELS (TONNAGE).

Mr. Storey: asked the President of the Board of Trade the tonnage of cargo-carrying vessels, other than tankers, owned in the United Kingdom which are over 25 years old, at the latest convenient date; and similar figures for the Dominions and for the British Colonies?

Captain Wallace: The available statistics of vessels over 25 years old do not distinguish cargo-carrying vessels from other vessels. Taking all descriptions of steam and motor vessels of 'co tons gross and over registered in Great Britain and Ireland on 1st July, 1937, the vessels of 25 years of age and over aggregated 1,557,566 tons gross. The corresponding figure for the Dominions and Colonies was 850,038 tons gross. These figures include tankers and non-trading vessels.

Mr. Storey: asked the President of the Board of Trade the tonnage of cargo-carrying vessels, other than tankers, owned in the United Kingdom at the latest convenient date and the corresponding date in 1913; and similar figures for the Dominions and for the British Colonies?

Captain Wallace: As the answer is long and includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The gross tonnage of steam and motor vessels of 100 tons gross and over, excluding tankers, registered in Great Britain and Ireland on 1st July, 1937, was 14,903,000. It is estimated that the tonnage of tramps, cargo liners and combined passenger and cargo liners included in this total amounted to about 12,800,000 tons gross. Steam and motor tonnage of 100 tons gross and over, including tankers, registered in Great Britain and Ireland on 1st July, 1913, amounted to 18,274,000 tons gross. The vessels included cannot readily be classified, but


on the basis of such information as is available it is probable that the gross tonnage of tramps, cargo liners and combined passenger and cargo liners included in the total was about 16,000,000. The gross tonnage of all descriptions of British steam and motor vessels of 100 tons gross and over registered at ports outside Great Britain and Ireland was 2,610,000 on 1st July, 1937, and 1,575,000 on 1st July, 1913. Information is not available to classify the vessels.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES ACT.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the provision that the name of the real holder of shares in a limited liability company shall appear with his address in the records at Somerset House is now violated by the device of registering shares in the name of a nominee company; and whether he can assure the House that he will take early steps to amend the Companies Act to prevent any further extension of this practice?

Captain Wallace: There is no legal requirement that the name of the beneficial owner of shares in a limited company shall be entered in the Register of Members, and indeed Section 101 of the Companies Act, 1929, provides that no notice of any trust, express, implied or constructive, shall be entered on the Register or be receivable by the Registrar of Companies registered in England. Any liability or obligation attaching to a share falls to be met by the person in whose name the share is registered. The point has, however, been noted for consideration when the amendment of the Companies Act is under review.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that this practice can be very dangerous and at the same time provide an opportunity for hidden forces to operate through nominee companies, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to do something in the matter?

Captain Wallace: I can only say that it is a matter for consideration when amending the Companies Acts.

Mr. H. G. Williams: What are the names of the real shareholders in Arcos, Limited?

Mr. Macquisten: Why should we encourage Nosey Parkers?

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not forget that the complaint embodied in the question is a very serious one, and that the device of nominee companies is used as a cloak for fraud, occasionally, at any rate?

Captain Wallace: This matter has been carefully noted by my right hon. Friend for consideration when it is possible to legislate on the subject.

Mr. Benson: When will that be?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in the preparation of the Bill dealing with the reform of the Companies Acts which he has promised to introduce as soon as possible; and whether he proposes to deal with the law relating to property societies in this Bill?

Captain Wallace: Considerable progress has been made with the preparation of the Measure to deal with share-pushing and similar activities, which I outlined in the Debate on 15th December. It is intended that this Measure shall include a provision to deal with the abuses which have arisen in connection with certain societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts.

Mr. Bellenger: While I note with pleasure the progress which the right hon and gallant Gentleman has made, does he anticipate that this Measure will be introduced this Session?

Captain Wallace: That is a question which should not be addressed to me.

Mr. Petherick: Will the Minister make the long title of the Bill as wide as possible?

Oral Answers to Questions — HARLYN BAY, CORNWALL (SAND REMOVAL).

Mr. R. Acland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the document, in the form of a petition, sent from residents in the neighbourhood of Harlyn Bay, near Padstow, Cornwall, relating to the dangers caused by the removal of sand from the bay; and whether he will take steps, either directly or through the local authorities, to protect the coast and its amenities at Harlyn Bay?

Captain Wallace: My right hon. Friend has received the petition, but the Board of Trade have no authority to stop the removals of sand to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Acland: In view of the fact that large pieces of the country are being washed away, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see whether there are not some powers by which the Government could stop this being done?

Captain Wallace: Among other things, it would need legislation, and it would mean the repeal of an old Act of James I giving the inhabitants of Cornwall the right to take sand for agricultural purposes. The foreshore in Cornwall is not under the Board of Trade, but under the management of the Duchy of Cornwall, to whom a copy of the petition has been sent.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that, according to the official statement of the Government, approximately 1,000,000 persons are required for the various voluntary air-raid precaution services, he will consider the creation of a special department in order that the whole efforts of these services in Great Britain can be controlled under one head; and what has been the response to the call for medical and nursing volunteers for these services?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave on 7th February and 31st March in reply to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) and the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson). As regards the second part of the question, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that while figures are not available for the whole country, recruiting for first-aid work is satisfactory except in a few areas.

Mr. Day: Will the Prime Minister consider making this a national responsibility instead of throwing the charge on the local authorities?

The Prime Minister: That seems to be the same question again in another form.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not the present rate of progress a proof that much more central organisation and control is urgently required?

Mr. Salt: (for Mr. Louis Smith) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the cost which will fall on voluntary hospitals if they take, as they are expected to do, the fullest measures of air-raid precautions to protect their patients and staff; whether he will make inquiries as to the views of hospital managements generally on this important issue; and whether he will then consider the grant to the hospitals of State assistance to ensure the necessary protection?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Voluntary hospitals like other institutions are expected to take such measures as are reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of their patients and staff. There will, however, be some hospitals which will be used as casualty clearing stations under a local authority's scheme approved by the Secretary of State; in such cases the local authority could contribute to any special expenditure involved in their use, and such expenditure, if approved, would in proper cases rank for grant under the Act.

Colonel Nathan: When will the hospitals which are to be used as casualty stations be told that that is so; and may I ask with regard to other hospitals whether it is intended that the funds subscribed by the charitable public for the cure of disease and helping the afflicted shall be used for the protection of premises against air raids?

Mr. Lloyd: A good many hospitals will undoubtedly fall under the class which I have described. The Ministry of Health are at present engaged in a survey of the hospital accommodation of the country from the air-raid precautions point of view.

Colonel Nathan: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the great voluntary hospitals of London are at present without any information at all as to what is expected of them in the event of air raids, and that their efforts to obtain information from the Home Office or elsewhere have been fruitless?

Mr. Lloyd: I understand that the survey of London will be completed in a few weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (AVOIDANCE).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the recent large scale avoidance of Surtax and Income Tax by persons otherwise liable to pay these taxes; whether he can give any estimate of the amount lost to the Revenue in this manner; and whether he is prepared to initiate legislation to prevent such evasion?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) on this subject of 24th February, to which I am unable to add anything in advance of my Budget statement.

Mr. Bellenger: Although I do not wish to anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's Budget statement, might I ask whether the question is not of such a nature as to warrant his giving immediate and careful consideration to it?

Sir J. Simon: I do not want to disturb the hon. Gentleman's resolve not to anticipate my Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING VESSELS (LIFESAVING APPLIANCES).

Mr. Adamson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will explain the delay in making the new rules in respect to the lifesaving appliances to be carried on fishing vessels?

Captain Wallace: After discussions with all the interests concerned, the draft of the new rules regarding lifesaving appliances to be carried by fishing vessels has been prepared. This draft will be submitted to the new Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, which is now in course of being constituted, as soon as the committee is in office.

Mr. Adamson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that views were invited, and can he say why there has been this delay?

Captain Wallace: This is a complicated matter, which has had to be submitted to a large number of different

people who have an interest in it, in order to see that they make the rules applicable to the situation as it exists. I hope the Advisory Committee will be appointed this month, and the new rules will be the first question to be dealt with when they are appointed.

Mr. Adamson: Has the Board yet found a Chairman for the Committee?

Captain Wallace: I could not say that without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SUNDERLAND AND SOUTH SHIELDS.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of men in age groups between the ages of 18 and 64, skilled and unskilled, and the trades to which they belong, who are unemployed in the county boroughs of Sunderland and South Shields?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply

The tables below show the numbers of insured men, aged 18–64, in the principal industry classifications recorded as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Sunderland and South Shields at 14th March, 1938. Separate statistics of the numbers of skilled and unskilled men are not available.

The figures exclude a small number of men insured under the agricultural scheme of unemployment insurance.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES IN SUNDERLAND.


Industry and number of insured men aged 18–64 recorded as unemployed at 14th March, 1938.


Shipbuilding and ship-repairing
2,339


Coal mining
1,649



Public works contracting

1,375


Building
1,012


Distributive trades
913


Local Government Service
642


Shipping Service
575


Dock, Harbour, etc, Service
469


Marine Engineering
402


General Engineering, etc.
319


All other insured industries and services
3,144


Total, all insured industries and services
12.840

BENEFIT.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether insurance officers are acting upon his instructions when questioning the right to benefit of individuals who seek the advice of shop steward or mill representative as to the conditions prevailing, before accepting employment, and are then refused employment for having done so?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The determination by the statutory authorities of claims to unemployment benefit is not subject to instructions from my right hon. Friend, nor is he aware of any case of the kind described, but I shall be happy to make inquiry, if the hon. Member will give me particulars of any specific case he has in mind.

DUMBARTONSHIRE.

Mr. Cassells: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed in Dumbartonshire in the age groups 45 to 55, and 55 to 65, on the last convenient date; and whether they reveal an increase or decrease on the previous year?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: At 1st November, 1937, the unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Dumbartonshire included 854 aged 45–54, and 855 aged 55 to 64. At 3rd November, 1936, the corresponding figures were 982 and 969, respectively. The figures for November, 1937, have been compiled in accordance with the revised procedure for counting the unemployed, introduced in September, 1937, under which persons subsequently found to be in employment at the date of the count are excluded from the figures.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. Bevan: asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for

benefit under the Agricultural Unemployment Insurance Act whose benefit is affected by the ceiling rule?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As explained by my right hon. Friend in reply to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on 17th March, it is regretted that statistics giving this information are not available.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, as on a previous occasion, he has no figures to give on what is a very important question indeed, in view of the fact that agricultural labourers who are unemployed are having their benefit reduced by this rule?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With regard to this particular question, I think there is something in what the hon. Member says, and I will make inquiries into the matter.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Bevan: asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for unemployment allowance whose allowance is affected by the income of other members of the family; and the total sum of money saved thereby in the last available year?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As regards the first part of the question, I regret that information is not available in the form desired by the hon. Member. Of 570,000 persons in receipt of allowances in December last, it is estimated that in about 28 per cent. of cases the applicant or members of his household possessed resources which were partly taken into account in the assessment of the allowance. This does not include applicants whose allowances were adjusted solely by reason of casual earnings at the time of payment, nor does it include applicants who, on the basis of household resources available, were adjudged not to be in need. As regards the second part of the question, this information is not available.

Mr. Bevan: Does not the hon. Member realise that the first part of this question raises the same point with regard to unemployment assistance as the previous one about agricultural benefit, and will he obtain information under that head; and, with regard to the second part of the question, is it not possible to have that information so as to enable us to discuss the Budget intelligently?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will bear in mind the argument of the hon. Member, but this raises a different point from that raised by the previous question, and a great deal more research would be necessary than would be needed in the other case.

Mr. Bevan: asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for unemployment assistance whose allowance is affected by the wages they received when last in employment?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume that the hon. Member refers to adjustments of allowances made under paragraph IV 1 (2) (a) of the Board's regulations. It is estimated that in December last such adjustments numbered approximately 6,500.

TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE.

Mr. Day: (for Mr. Ede) asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are now employed on the Team Valley Trading Estate; and what percentage of them are persons under 18 years of age?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am informed that there are now nearly 1,000 persons employed in the factories occupied by tenants on the trading estate at Team Valley. About the middle of last month when the number was 758, 321 were under 18 years of age.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK MARKETING BOARD.

Sir G. Gibson: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount received by the Milk Marketing Board from distributors and paid to producers during the past 12 months; and what were the costs of administration of the board during this period?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend understands from the Milk Marketing Board that the accounts for the financial year ended 31st March, 1938, are not yet ready, but the board will send a copy of the accounts to my hon. Friend as soon as they are available.

Sir G. Gibson: asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount falling upon the taxpayer as a result of loss due to the operations of the Milk Marketing Board during the last available 12 months?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any loss due to the operations of the Milk Marketing Board which falls on the taxpayer. Perhaps my hon. Friend has in mind the Exchequer payments, amounting to £108,028 during the 12 months ended 31st March last, in respect of milk manufactured into certain products, or the Exchequer contribution, amounting to £474,449 during the same period, towards the expenses of the board in giving effect to the milk-in-schools scheme and other approved arrangements for increasing demand. In addition, during the same period the Commissioner for the Special Areas made a grant of £4330 towards the cost of experimental schemes for the supply of cheap milk to nursing and expectant mothers and children under school age.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT (SABOTAGE).

Mr. Radford: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the accredited representatives of the men at the Fairey aviation works have now been allowed to inspect the damaged machines; and, if not, why this request on the part of the men has not been acceded to?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I am informed that the company had a full discussion with representatives of the men on 29th March concerning these cases of malicious damage; but no request to inspect the damaged machines has been made on behalf of the workmen and the damaged parts have actually been repaired. The management of the factory would, however, have no objection to indicating to the accredited representatives of the men, by reference to a similar machine, the exact nature of the damage in question, if such a request is put forward. The Government have the utmost confidence in the workmen and welcome their co-operation in this matter. Hon. Members will, of course, appreciate that the work of detecting the persons guilty of the malicious damage must remain the responsibility of the police authorities.

Mr. Radford: While thanking my Noble Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that the surest safeguard against such a crime as sabotage


is the whole-hearted co-operation of the men in the factories?

Earl Winterton: I have said so on two previous occasions.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need for expediting the publication of the results of the inquiry in order that the enemies of the people can be exposed before the whole nation?

Earl Winterton: That is clearly a matter for the police. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when the police are investigating a crime we cannot demand that they should produce results within a certain time. I am content to leave it to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD ACCIDENT, ISLEWORTH.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to an accident in the London Road, Isleworth, on 4th April, in which four children from Marlborough Infants' School were knocked down and injured by a motor car; and will he say whether a policeman was on duty to assist the children across the road when they were leaving school and, if not, why not?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am informed that there were two officers on duty near the school at the point where the children have to cross a main road on their way to and from their homes. The children who were knocked down had crossed another road, which they need not normally cross, apparently to play in some sand, and were hit while they were running back to the side of the road on which the school lies. They were not observed either by the police officers or by the driver of the car as they were hidden by a stationary lorry.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Home Secretary what consultations have taken place recently with organisations of employers as to their attitude towards a revision of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and with what result?

Sir S. Hoare: I have not recently consulted organisations of employers on this subject.

Mr. Smith: Does not that answer rather signify that there is no determination on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to revise the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, not at all. I informed the House only the other day that I was receiving a deputation from the Trades Union Congress on the subject. I am actively making inquiries in a number of different directions.

Mr. Smith: In view of the urgency of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to expedite the matter?

Sir S. Hoare: I have already answered several questions on the subject, and I must refer the hon. Member to the answers which I have given.

Mr. Smith: Are we to take it from the answers that the policy of the Government is opposed to that of the community?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

PLEBISCITE VOTE, GREAT BRITAIN (POLLING SHIP INSPECTION).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Home Secretary whether the customary passport and Customs inspection took place on the return of the German polling ship to the London docks from outside territorial limits?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir.

BRITISH PASSPORTS.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will make representations to the German Government that they cannot accept differentiation of treatment between Aryan and non-Aryan holders of British passports?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The hon. Member is presumably referring to the regulations governing the departure of foreigners, recently issued in Austria, in which a distinction was apparently drawn between non-Aryan and other foreigners. I have now been informed that no formalities are any longer required in the case of British visitors wishing to leave Austria unless they are resident in Austria. I am making further inquiries concerning the conditions governing the departure of British residents.

Mr. Thorne: What is the meaning of "Aryan"?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the Nuremburg Law.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will not the Government protest against this differentiation in regard to British subjects?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

HOUGHALL ISOLATION HOSPITAL, DURHAM.

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the report which has been sent to him concerning the administration of Houghall Isolation Hospital, Durham; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the complaints made?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): My right hon. Friend has received a communication with regard to this hospital from the former matron, and is in correspondence with the Durham Rural District Council on the matter. I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Mr. Messer: If, as the result of the information gained, a reason is shown for an investigation, will a complete inquiry take place and evidence be asked for?

Mr. Bernays: I must ask the hon. Member to await the result of my right hon. Friend's investigations.

CIGARETTE ADULTERATION.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take some steps to protect the cigarette-smoking public from the cigarettes now being sold containing injurious foreign matter blended with a small percentage of tobacco, in view of the danger to public health entailed?

Mr. Bernays: I have no information about the sale of cigarettes of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I shall be glad to make inquiries if he will send me any information in his possession.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my hon. Friend realise that this particular brand of cigarettes is a direct negation of the Keep Fit and Get Fit Campaign which he is trying to get into the public mind?

Mr. Bernays: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be kind enough to give me one of those cigarettes, and I shall be able to test it.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my hon. Friend realise that I am up against all the vested interests in this matter in this country?

ANTE-NATAL CLINICS.

Mr. Joel: asked the Minister of Health how many towns of over 20,000 people are without ante-natal clinics; and what action he is taking in each of these cases to induce the local authorities to take remedial measures?

Mr. Bernays: Out of 230 towns with over 20,000 people, the local authorities of which are themselves welfare authorities for this purpose, only eight are without ante-natal clinics. In each of these cases either suitable alternative provision is available or ante-natal clinics are about to be established. In the case of 77 towns of over 20,000 people which are included in the areas of county councils as welfare authorities the information is not readily available, but I shall be happy to obtain for my hon. Friend the information he desires.

Mr. Leach: Will the Minister undertake to publish the names of the authorities which have been so negligent?

Mr. Bernays: As they are about to provide ante-natal clinics I do not think that would be desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Parkinson: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of old age pensions; how many are married but whose wives are not entitled to a pension; and how many are in receipt of public assistance in the county of Lancashire and in the Wigan area, giving separate figures in each case?

Mr. Bernays: The number of old age pensioners in receipt of relief in the administrative county of Lancaster and in the county borough of Wigan on the 1st January, 1938, were 9,273 and 747 respectively. I regret that the other information asked for in the question is not available.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Gentleman recommend the Chancellor to increase all the pensions so as to eliminate the need for public relief?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES' HOSTELS.

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health the names of the local authorities which have provided hostels or lodging houses under the Housing Acts, stating whether the accommodation is provided for men, women, boys, or girls, and the number that can be accommodated?

Mr. Bernays: I have no complete information on this subject, but I am aware that hostels or lodging houses have been provided under the Housing Acts by the London County Council, the town councils of Bristol, Ipswich, Leeds, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Nottingham, Shrewsbury, Southampton and Walsall and the urban district council of Welwyn Garden City. I am not in a position to give the details asked for in the latter part of the question.

Mr. Ammon: Is not the Minister aware that in London there is always surplus accommodation provided?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOMALILAND.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to whom were the appeals made on behalf of natives of British Somaliland sentenced to death which resulted in the death sentence being quashed in three cases and commuted in 13 others during the ten-year period 1928 to 1937, inclusive?

The Comptroller of the Household (Captain Waterhouse): I have been asked to reply. The appeals were heard by the Protectorate Court, and the commutations were made by the Governor acting under the power conferred on him by the Somaliland Order-in-Council.

Mr. Ammon: Does that mean that as there is no real judiciary of legally-trained people, appeals have to be made to a lay court on a question like this?

Captain Waterhouse: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRYN ENGAN WOOD, CAPEL CURIG.

Mr. Graham White: (for Major Owen) asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether it is the intention of the Commissioners to cut down the only remaining oak plantation in the Capel Curig district of Carnarvonshire; and whether he will first give an opportunity to the residents of the locality to put forward their objections to the destruction of this beauty spot?

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): The question presumably refers to Bryn Engan Wood, although it is not the only remaining oak wood in the Capel Curig district. There is no present intention of cutting down this wood. The only fellings have been thinnings made in the ordinary course of forestry. The latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether, in the negotiations for an agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, any request has been made for the incorporation of some Abyssinian territory in adjacent British territories by way of frontier rectification or otherwise, and for the affirmation of British rights or claims in relation to Lake Tsana?

The Prime Minister: As I have more than once informed the House, I am not in a position at present to give any information regarding the subject of the discussions now proceeding in Rome.

Mr. Attlee: Is it not possible for the Prime Minister to give a specific denial to the allegation which is made in many quarters that His Majesty's Government are prepared to make a profit out of the sufferings of Abyssinia?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any such absurd allegation. It is not the usual practice to discuss the details of negotiations before they are concluded, and I do not wish to make a breach in that practice.

Sir Percy Harris: Shall we have a statement on the subject before we go away for our holidays?

The Prime Minister: I think not.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask Minister for what purpose it to move the suspension of o'Clock Rule to-night?

The Prime Minister: As the House will be aware to-morrow is also available for the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill, and to-day we desire to make sufficient progress to ensure the conclusion of the Report stage and Third Reading by to-morrow night. In addition to the consideration of that Bill to-day, we propose to take the second and third Orders, which I do not think will keep the House for any considerable time. The suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is only precautionary.

Mr. Maxton: Has any time been fixed for terminating the Debate on the Rent Bill and proceeding to the other two Orders?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, no time has been fixed

Mr. Maxton: Does that mean that those Orders will only be taken after Eleven o'clock?

The Prime Minister: That depends upon how we get on with the business.

Mr. Maxton: The Prime Minister is not being very informative. Is it his intention that the House should sit late, until the first Measure has made very substantial progress and the other two have been passed?

The Prime Minister: As I said in my answer just now, all that we want is to make sufficient progress to ensure that we get the Report stage and Third Reading of the Rent Bill to-morrow. I do not at this moment expect that the programme for to-day will take an exceptionally long time.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 137.

Division No. 172.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Grimston, R. V.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Crooks, Sir J. S.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Assheton, R.
Cross, R. H.
Hannah, I. C.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Culverwell, C. T.
Harbord. A.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hartington, Marquess of


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Harvey, Sir G.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Dawson, Sir P.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Do la Bère, R.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Bernays, R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heilgers, Captain F. F A.


Blair, Sir R.
Denville, Alfred
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan


Bossom, A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Hepworth, J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duckworth W. R. (Moss Side)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Holmes, J. S.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Duggan, H. J.
Hope. Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Duncan. J. A. L.
Hopkinson, A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Eastwood, J. F.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Bull, B. B.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hulbert, N. J.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hunter, T.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Elmley, Viscount
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Butler, R. A.
Emery, J. F.
Joel, D. J. B.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Keeling, E. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Everard. W. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fildes, Sir H.
Latham, Sir P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Findlay, Sir E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Channon, H.
Fleming, E. L.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Liddall, W. S.


Christie, J. A.
Furness, S. N.
Lipson, D. L.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lloyd, G. W.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.


Colville. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Graham. Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)




Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


McKie, J. H.
Ramsbotham, H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Macquisten, F. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Magnay, T.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Maitland, A.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Tate, Mavis C.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Markham, S. F.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Touche, G. C.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Train, Sir J.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Rowlands, G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Morrison. G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wedderburn. H. J. S.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Salmon, Sir I.
Wells, S. R.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.
Salt, E. W.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


O'Conner, Sir Terence J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon, Sir P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Scott, Lord William
Withers, Sir J. J.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Selley, H. R.
Womerstey, Sir W. J.


Patrick, C. M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Peake, O.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Peat, C. U.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Petherick, M,
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)



Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Mr. Munro and Captain


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Waterhouse.


Radford, E. A.
Storey, S.





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pearson, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, Agnes
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banheld, J. W.
Hayday, A.
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
Holdsworth, H.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bevan, A.
Hollins, A.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cassells. T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Lathan, G.
Stephen C.


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lee, F.
Strauss, G, R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Summerskill, Edith



Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton. H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Day, H.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Ede, J. C.
Mander, G. le M.
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mathers, G.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff. C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver. G. H.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Paling, W.

JEWISH CITIZENSHIP.

Commander Locker-Lampson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend Palestinian nationality.
Might I ask hon. Members to consider once again an international problem for a very few moments? We are still shuddering from the shock of the recent rape of Austria. It is but yesterday that the great big bully of Europe continued his career of spoliation and gobbled up another victim. Would that Herr Hitler were not the kind of personality that he has been painted to us, and that he were not a person of chilly personal correctitude that we have been told. If only he did smoke, and eat meat, and drink, he might be more human and less dangerous; he might, like other dictators, be content to covet somebody's concubine rather than somebody's country. But true to type, he has brought another 7,000,000 people under the iron heel and in doing so he has done this: He has intensified terribly the problem of Jewry all over the world. His calculated policy is to wipe out 300,000 innocents who have never done him or others any harm. Some of them have made Austria a sort of artistic centre of Europe. Among them are the most eminent scientists in the world. One of them is the famous scientist Freud. Freud is over 80 and he is dying. Half his jaw was removed not long ago to save his life.

Colonel Clifton Brown: On a point of Order. We have only 10 minutes for referring to this Bill. Could we not hear something about the Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend is talking about something else.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is leading up to his Bill.

Commander Locker-Lampson: I promise to be not more than another five minutes. In spite of Freud being old and dying, the Nazi monsters have deprived him of liberty. I am not here to consider the general reaction of all this upon His Majesty's Government, or to ask them to do anything but to consider its relation to Palestine. I for one deplore the lack of grip of past Governments in relation to the promised, perhaps the too much promised land. It was vacillation which sold the pass in Palestine. We should

never have taken our marching orders from Signor Mussolini. We should have countered the proposals and the propaganda which Italy and Germany poured in to make the Arabs not anti-Jew but anti-British. The "Times" has informed us that for five pounds an Arab can be got to kill a Jew. I wonder where the money comes from?
The colonisation of Jewry should have gone on and there should have been no defeatist policy of partition at all. Assuming that it does go on, my idea is this: Although I hold to the creation of a State in Palestine of possibly millions of Jews who will act as a buffer State against any military monster who may advance from the North to seize the Canal or cut the pipe-line which provides our only oil supply in the Mediterranean, the purpose of my Bill is this: It is forgotten that it is a very ancient principle, that of preserving citizenship to subjects of a State who remain abroad. For instance, there have been more citizens of Norway living outside than in Norway in one period of that country's history. I would like to give the potentially persecuted Jew in Europe the chance, if he wishes it, of becoming a Palestinian subject. Why, for instance, should Jews in Poland, who cannot move to Palestine, not be able to take up extra-territorial citizenship? They would then become what Jews are in Palestine, protected persons under the Mandate and freemen of a State. They could pay a yearly fee for the Government of Palestine, which would make that place once again a land flowing with milk and money.
Our Government cannot be called upon to take any action in relation to Austria. We know that it is pledged not to interfere in Austria's affairs, but where Jews are wantonly rendered homeless there is an implicit pledge to protect on the part of the Power to which mandatory duties have been given to build up a Jewish citadel for refugees; and the sudden extermination of another 300,000 Jews in Austria makes the claim paramount. Hopeless, helpless, unhappy, these tragic wanderers should not look in vain to us for sanctuary, and I will prophesy that the Almighty will bless those who are good to the stranger at the gate.

Colonel Brown: I wish to oppose the Motion on three grounds. First, it seems to me, from the speech we have just


heard, which is bound to be reported in Palestine, that it might be held that Jews have a right to go to Palestine whether they come from Poland or elsewhere, and that the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend will merely inflame the Arab people.

Commander Locker-Lampson: I said nothing of the kind.

Colonel Brown: I understood my hon. and gallant Friend to say that Jews everywhere should have Palestinian nationality. That is just enough to inflame all the feelings of patriotism amongst Mohammedans in Palestine. I say quite seriously to my hon. and gallant Friend that statements of that kind made in this House may mean the loss of several lives of British police and soldiers in Palestine. My second reason for opposing the Motion is that I doubt whether it is really in order.

Mr. Thorne: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in casting a reflection on you, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member only expressed a doubt on the subject.

Colonel Brown: The reason why I express doubt is that, while I realise that anyone can bring in a Bill on any subject in this House, and while I would not think of challenging Mr. Speaker's discretion in the matter, it seems to me that we have no jurisdiction over a mandated territory, and that we might pass a law which would have no possible effect in Palestine. To do that makes the House look foolish. A third reason for opposing the Motion is this. I cannot see that we shall arrive at any solution in Palestine by dealing with the Jews of all those countries in which they have been persecuted. To lump them all in one mass, to give them Palestinian nationality and to imagine that thereby you solve the Palestinian trouble or help the Jews, is to make a very great mistake. It would be only adding to the fears which to a great extent are causing the trouble in Palestine to-day, and this Motion can only add to Arab fears without doing the Jews the slightest good.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend Palestinian nationality.

The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 144,

Division No. 173.]
AYES.
[4.10 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Ede, J. C.
Leonard, W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Leslie, J. R.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gallacher, W.
Lipson, D. L.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leads, W.)
Gardner, B. W.
Logan, D. G.


Adamson, W. M.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lunn, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Maodonald, G. (Ince)


Ammon, C. G.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
McEntee, V. La T.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McGhee, H. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Maclean, N.


Banfield, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mainwaring, W H.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mander, G. le M.


Barr, J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mathers, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Maxton, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Groves, T. E.
Messer, F.


Benson G.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Montague, F.


Bevan, A.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Bromfield, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whiteehapel)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hardie, Agnes
Muff, G


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Buchanan, G.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Naylor, T. E.


Burke, W. A.
Hayday, A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Cape, T.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oliver, G. H.


Cassells, T.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, W.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parker, J.


Chater, D.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parkinson, J. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Holdsworth, H.

Pearson, A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Hopkin, D.
Price, M. P.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jagger, J.
Pritt, D. N.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
John. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Daggar, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Dalton, H.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Day, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lathan, G.
Robinson. W. A. (St. Helens)


Eckersley, P. T.
Lee, F.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)




Sexton, T. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
White, H. Graham


Silverman, S. S.
Summerskill, Edith
Whitelay, W. (Blayden)


Simpson, F. B.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Thurtle, E.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Tinker, J. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Tomlinson, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Sorensen, R. W.
Walker, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Stephen, C.
Watkins, F. C.



Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Watson, W. MeL.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Westwood, J.
Commander Locker Lampson




and Mr. W. Thorne.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Albery, Sir Irving
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Procter, Major H. A.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fyte, D. P. M.
Radford, E. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otlay)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Grimston, R. V.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Hannah, I. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Hannon, Sir P. J, H.
Ropner, Cotonel L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harbord, A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Blair, Sir R.
Harvey, Sir G.
Rowlands, G.


Bossom, A. C.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hepworth, J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Bull, B. B.
Hopkinson, A.
Scott, Lord William


Bullock, Capt. M.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Selley, H. R.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hulbert, N. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertres)


Butcher, H. W.
Hunter, T.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Channon, H.
Keeling, E. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead).
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Latham, Sir P.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cooke. J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Liddall, W. S.
Tale, Mavis C.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lloyd, G. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Crockshank, Capt. H. F. C.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G
Touche, G. C.


Cross, R. H.
McKie, J. H.
Train, Sir J.


Crewder, J. F. E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Magnay, T.
Ward, Lieul.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Maitland, A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dawson, Sir P.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


De la Bère, R.
Markham, S. F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Denville, Alfred
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wells, S. R.


Duckworth. W. R. (Moss Side)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Duggan, H. J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Eastwood, J. F.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lana (Streatham)
Wilson, C. H. (Atterclifle)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Emery, J. F.
Munro, P.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Patrick, C. M.




Fildes, Sir H.
Peake, O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fleming, E. L.
Petherick, M.
Colonel Clifton Brown and




Mr. Pickthorn.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I must give my vote for leave to bring in the Bill, in order that the House may be able to deal with it as it sees fit.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Commander Locker-Lampson, Colonel Wedgwood, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter, Mr. Vyvyan Adams, and Mr. T. Williams.

JEWISH CITIZENSHIP BILL,

"to extend Palestinian nationality," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon

Tuesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

SALTBURN AND MARSKE-BY-THE SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, An Act to empower the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the city of Manchester to cover over part of the river Irwell and to acquire lands for their transport undertaking and for other purposes." [Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the city of Wakefield to construct new streets street improvements and waterworks and to acquire land for those and other purposes; to make further provision with regard to their water, electricity and markets undertakings and to make further provision with regard to the health, local government and improvement of the city; and for other purposes." [Wakefield Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the city of Plymouth; and for other purposes." [Plymouth Extension Bill [Lords.]

Collecting Charities (Regulation) Bill [Lords],—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Collecting Charities (Regulation) Bill [Lords] do meet in Committee Room A, House of Lords, on Tuesday, 10th May, at Eleven o'clock.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords.]

WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords.]

PLYMOUTH EXTENSION BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

COLLECTING CHARITIES (REGU LATION) BILL [Lords.]

So much of the Lords Message as relates to Collecting Charities (Regulation) Bill [Lords] considered.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SELECTION (POST OFFICE SITES BILL SELECT COMMITTEE).

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had

nominated the following three Members to serve on the Select Committee on the Post Office Sites Bill: Captain McEwen, Mr. Annesley Somerville, and Mr. Viant.
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee;

"That, in the case of the Penzance Corporation [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

PERFORMING ANIMALS (REGULATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading To-morrow read, and discharged:—-B ill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to standard rent.)

Where a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply is part of another dwelling-house to which those Acts apply, the standard rent of the first-mentioned dwelling-house as from the twenty-ninth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, shall be a standard rent ascertained by apportioning the standard rent of the second-mentioned dwelling-house, and Sub-section (3) of Section twelve of the Act of 1920 shall apply accordingly notwithstanding that the first-mentioned dwelling-house was let as a separate dwelling on or before the first day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, or on or before the date on which the second-mentioned dwelling-house was first let.—[Mr. Ammon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In Section 12 (3) of the Act of 1920 it is laid down that the county court can apportion rent for the purposes of determining the standard rent on the first letting after 3rd August, 1914, but that was rather upset by a decision in the courts in 1929 which declared that the premises in question were not separately let on 3rd August, 1914. The Clause seeks to put that right. If the Clause is carried, it will be possible in such cases for the standard rent to be apportioned, taking into consideration the rent previous to 1914, the addition of 40 per cent., and the increase of rates.

4.24 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kinsgley Wood): I shall be glad to accept this Clause, but should like to say a word with regard to it. As I understand the matter, if a house was legally sub-let in 1914, the rent actually charged to the sub-tenant at that date is the standard rent of the sub-let part, and all the increases, etc., are based on this standard rent. The Clause proposes that, as from 29th September, 1938, the existing law shall be altered, so that in future the standard rent of any sub-let part of a

controlled house shall be the proper proportion of the total standard rent, having regard to the relative proportion of the total occupation occupied by the tenant and sub-tenant. It may be that this arrangement would go far to prevent profiteering by sub-tenants, but I should say that probably the greater number of sub-tenancies are already dealt with on the basis of apportionment, because the actual part sub-let was not sub-let in 1914. The new Clause, therefore, will only affect a minority of sub-lettings. I think that it will put the matter in a form such as the House would desire, and for that reason I am prepared to advise the House to accept it.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I should like to ask the Minister a question, merely for purposes of information. He has referred to subletting. Do I understand that, in accepting this Clause, he regards it as dealing with cases where tenants holding a whole house from a landlord proceed to sub-let portions of it; or does it refer to hereditaments that were let by the landlord himself—not sub-let—in 1914, or, in other words, tenement houses?

Sir K. Wood: I should think, myself, that it would apply to all sub-lettings, but, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to verify that.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Further amendment as to ascertainment of standard rent.)

(1) If, in any proceedings in which the standard rent of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply is required to be determined, the court is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain the standard rent of such dwelling-house in manner provided by Section six of the Act of 1933, the court shall determine the standard rent as being, for the purposes of those proceedings, the amount of the rent stated in the return made to the rating authority for the purpose of the making of the valuation list:

(a) in London, in the year nineteen hundred and fifteen;
(b) in Scotland, in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen;
(c) elsewhere, next before the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen:

Provided that, where there was no such return in respect of the dwelling-house, the court shall have power to determine the standard rent as being, for the purposes of


the proceedings, of such amount as the court thinks proper having regard to the rents stated in the returns made in respect of similar dwelling-houses in the neighbourhood.

(2) As from the date on which any determination is made under this Section the standard rent of the dwelling-house shall, unless the court making the determination otherwise orders, be deemed for all purposes to be of that amount.—[Mr. Silverman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to clear up difficulties which has arisen in the ascertainment of what is now the correct controlled rent of controlled tenancies in those cases where for a variety of reasons it is not easy to ascertain what was the standard rent in 1914, and where the Act of 1933 provides no adequate or satisfactory method of ascertaining it. There are, of course, a great many such cases. It is now something approaching a quarter of a century since the control of dwelling-houses of this type was instituted, and inevitably, during that period, there has been a good deal of mutation, with regard, not only to landlords, but to tenants, so that a situation frequently arises where both the tenant and the landlord of a controlled house are quite different from those of 1914, and have lost touch completely with the landlord and the tenant of that time. The Clause ought, I think, to be regarded as non-controversial. It seeks to provide a means, and I think the House will agree that it is a fair means, of ascertaining what the standard net rent is. In the first place, it goes to the year of assessment, which is not always the same. That is the reason for the three paragraphs of Sub-section (1) laying down the dates of 1915 for London, 1914 for Scotland, and elsewhere the year next before 3rd August, 1914. It suggests that we should go to the valuation list of that year and ascertain what the landlord then represented to the rating authority as the rental value of the tenancy.
It is considered—and we invite the Minister to accept it—that it is quite fair to go to the figure advanced by the landlord himself in the relative year as the figure which, in fact, is the proper rental to be taken into account in making the ascertainment. The landlord is not likely to have overstated it, for reasons arising


out of our peculiar rating system; therefore, it is not unfair for the public point of view; and if the landlord had in that year understated it, for reasons which were then profitable to himself, there is no reason why the tenant should not this time get the advantage of something of which the landlord has had the advantage for a considerable period. Of course, it would be much more satisfactory when you know what the actual rent is; but we are dealing with circumstances when that is not known and cannot be ascertained. It does happen—and this is the purpose of the proviso that begins in line 12—that that such returns sometimes do not exist and the valuation lists do not contain such statements of rental value. In such circumstances, there is no written record to which the court or interested parties may look to see what the standard rent was in 1914.
When all other methods fail, and you cannot get the figures, you do not know who were the predecessors in title, and there is no entry in the valuation list to guide you, it is proposed that you should go to similar houses in the neighbourhood where accommodation and other conditions are similar, ascertain what was the rental value for those houses, and proceed, as an assessment committee always proceeds in such cases, to determine the value according to the value of similar relevant property. It seems that if those methods are adopted, no unfairness will accrue to anyone, and you will have found some machinery for dealing with a gap in the law as it now is. There is no reason why any matters arising under this legislation, where no conflict of principle arises, should not be dealt with by this machinery. In this case, there is no conflict of principle. In a great many other matters which arise the House is inevitably divided, on principle, if you like, arising from social necessities and different views as to what those social necessities are. Here you have nothing of that sort.

4.35 p.m

Mr. T. Smith: I beg to second the Motion.
I take the opportunity of doing so, in order to draw attention to the fact that some of us find a good deal of difference of opinion as to what exactly was the 1914 rent. I have a statement here from the secretary of a tenants' defence league.


I think the House will agree that, on the whole, since Rent Restrictions Acts have been in operation tenants' defence leagues have done excellent work for tenants. They have made recoveries on arrears which would never have been obtained if the tenants had not organised. This secretary says that, in trying to ascertain what is the exact standard rent, he finds a conflict of opinion as to whether the landlord before the War actually paid the full 100 per cent. of rates or a lesser sum. He goes on to say that it is often stated in county courts that the amount of rates paid by the landlord before the War was a less percentage. I think the new Clause does lay down quite a fair method of ascertaining what the position is.

4.37 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I am very much afraid that, although we are seized with the point, the Government cannot accept the proposed Clause, for reasons which I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) will appreciate when I expound them. In the first place, the provisions would not apply to Scotland at all, because in Scotland they are quite unnecessary. There, the actual rent is in the ordinary course each year in the valuation roll, so that the roll itself is already direct evidence. Therefore, as far as Scotland is concerned, if you took the valuation roll you would only get at what is the existing basis of the valuation. As for England and Wales apart from London, the Clause would not work at all, because outside London there never had been such returns as are spoken of in the Clause until 1925. So the new Clause could only apply, by a process of elimination, to London. Would it be of any advantage to have provisions of this kind in regard to London?
In the first instance, I quarrel, merely as a lawyer, with what the Clause is attempting to do, because it is saying that, in certain circumstances, it may not be reasonably practicable for the courts to do what they are told to do in the 1933 Act. The Act of 1933 casts a duty on the court, and it is suggested that, if the court finds that it is not reasonably practicable to discharge that duty, it may discharge a different duty. That is perhaps a lawyer's point; but there is a

point of more substance, namely, that in the only place to which it can apply, that is, London, there always will, in fact, be houses in the neighbourhood to which the court can have regard in order to discharge its duties under the Act of 1933. The Act of 1933 says, in Section 6, that, where you cannot ascertain the standard rent of a particular house, the court shall have power to fix it at such an amount as the court thinks proper, having regard to the standard rents of similar dwelling houses in the neighbourhood.
It is inconceivable that in London a court should ever find itself in a position in which there were not similar houses in the neighbourhood, by reference to which the standard rents could be calculated if there were no data by which the rent of the particular house could be calculated. In England and Wales, outside London, there have been no such returns as this Clause mentions, except since 1925. Since 1225, by Section 40 of the Rating and Valuation Act, there have been returns made to the rating authority for the purpose of making the valuation list. That is what is to be the test according to the Clause. Those lists do not exist outside London, so the Clause could not operate anywhere outside London, except in Scotland, where it is irrelevant. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to take this Clause to a Division.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I wish to speak on the subject of the rest of England, outside of London. If my memory serves me right, there was a tremendous upheaval as to what was the rent that we were paying in 1914. We went to the rating officer. In my own case, I was paying 5s. 9d. a week rent and rates combined in 1914. Then they put the 40 per cent. on—15 per cent. plus 25 per cent. for repairs. We had got to find out what was the actual rent, exclusive of rates. We found it out in the rates book. This thing can be worked out quite easily if they put it in the Bill.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I am a little puzzled by the Solicitor-General's answer. Perhaps he will tell us how the authorities outside London arrived at their assessment. It seems to me that they must do the same


as we do in London. That is to say, they must have had a rating committee, and then there must have been an assessment committee set up to hear any appeals, and they must have fixed the rent at that time. We should be obliged if the Solicitor-General would tell us what difference there is in the methods adopted in London and elsewhere in arriving at this figure.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I cannot quite follow the Solicitor-General's reasoning. What we are trying to arrive at is the best possible method for ascertaining the standard rent. that is, the rent at which the premises were let on 3rd August, 1914. I am not conversant with the conditions that prevailed in Scotland in 1914 or that prevail there to-day, but I know something about the conditions appertaining to London. Perhaps the Solicitor-General is not aware that in London in 1914 there were numerous flats or suites of rooms let out as parts of houses that used to be occupied in the days of prosperity in the last century by one family. In other words, they were tenement houses. The rents of those flats, or suites of rooms, or dwellings—they are recognised as dwellings by the Rent Acts law—were fixed at varying figures.
In the Royal Borough of Kensington, which is composed very largely of big houses some of which even in 1914 were let out in parts, the rents varied by as much as 2S. a week. When there is any dispute as to the standard rent of that part of the house, it is within the discretion of the county court judge to fix the standard rent. The Solicitor-General has told us that under the Act of 1933, in the absence of other evidence, the judge can fix the standard rent by relation to the rents of adjoining premises or flats. Would it not be better to get a true rent which might be lower than the rent which the county court judge would decide on, because he would have to take into account not only the rent of that particular hereditament, but also the rent of similar hereditaments, perhaps next door, which might be as much as 2s. a week more than the rents paid in 1914 for a similar dwelling a few yards away?
It would be better to provide a means of getting at the standard rent of that particular hereditament which might be in dispute, by reference to the figures

which are available, certainly as far as London is concerned. I forget the quinquennial year which would govern 1914 —probably it would be 1910 or 1911—but the figures are in the possession of the local authorities for each hereditament forming part of the whole of the dwelling house. If that information can be given where the standard rent is in dispute, then the county court judge would have better evidence for fixing the standard rent than by calling evidence as to what somewhat similar premises were let at, perhaps next door, or further down the street. If it were possible for the Government to accept this Clause it would be a better method of ascertaining the standard rent than by reference to the sort of evidence which might be otherwise produced before the county court judge.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: In 1914 there was no valuation list in existence as we know it to-clay, because of the passing of the Act of 1925, but in 1914 there was the rateable value, which was well known to the local authorities for the purpose of rating assessments, which were based on the rental value. I understand that that was the valuation to which the mover of the new Clause was making reference. Surely, it would be possible by using the rateable value in the possession of the local authority to arrive at the rent of certain properties, almost without any reasonable measure of doubt. If that be so, why should that valuation not be accepted? The Solicitor-General referred to comparable property. There is no place in the world where comparable property could be used with greater authority and with less marginal error than in the provinces. In London it is a different matter, although the Solicitor-General says that in London the thing can be done. If it can be done in London it can be done with much greater accuracy in the provinces. If the principle be sound, then, where the standard rent cannot be ascertained in 1914 by any other means, this new Clause provides a medium whereby the standard rent can be ascertained. Therefore, I ask the Solicitor-General to accept the new Clause, if for that reason alone.

4.51 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: If I am wrong in my interpretation of the new Clause, 1


am sure the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) will not be lax in correcting me. As I understand him, what he wants to do is this. In a case where the landlord has made a return of his premises for the purpose of rating, and if there is no other evidence, he would like the matter to be settled by the figures which the landlord himself has put into his return. That is a perfectly understandable point of view, because the landlord in making a return for rating purposes is not likely to say that the rateable value is higher than it is. But that kind of return—this will answer the point raised by the hon. Member or North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon)—did not exist as regards the Provinces before 1925. The hon. Member asked me how it was done before 1925. The assessment was made by the guardians, acting as the assessing authority. The point sought to be made in the new Clause is not, therefore, applicable as regards the country and would not work anywhere except in London.
The new Clause says that where you cannot find the standard rent you shall have regard to the amount of rent stated in the return to the local authority. My short reply to that point is that there is not a return to the local authority and, therefore, the Clause would not work as regards anywhere except London. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) made another point. He said it was admitted that it would work as regards London, and I agree that it could be worked as regards London, but even then the Clause would not operate, because what the Clause says is that you shall only have regard to the return made to the local authority where it is not reasonably practicable to apply Section 6 of the Act of 1933. That Act tells the county court judge that he is to have regard to the standard rent of similar dwelling-houses in the neighbourhood. So far as London is concerned there would not be the slightest difficulty in the county court judge applying that test, because he has only to look at a house round the corner and apply the test. The Clause really would not do any good in regard to London, because so far as London is concerned it is unnecessary.

Mr. T. Johnston: If the Solicitor-General will look at Section 6 of the Act

of 1933 he will note that the county court judge, as I read the Section, has only to examine comparable rents in the neighbourhood when he has been unable to find sufficient evidence otherwise to enable him to fix the standard rent. First, he has to examine other sources of evidence, and only when that examination fails has he to go to comparable houses in the neighbourhood. In that event, why should not the county court judge be called upon to take the guardians' assessment prior to 1925 as reliable evidence before he goes to examine the rents of other houses in the neighbourhood?

The Solicitor-General: It is very difficult to give an answer upon the basis of a Clause which is not before the House. The Clause before the House requires the court to have regard to a non-existent return. It does not contain any statement by the landlord which would guide the court. As regards the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made on Section 6, the scheme is this. If you can find the standard rent, then your task is over. If you can find out the rent paid for the premises on 3rd August, 1914, there is an end to the matter. If you cannot do that, and it is not reasonably practicable to do it, then you look at the neighbouring houses and you say: "What were these let at?" Having got that figure, you then say that that is a guide as to the figure that ought to be applied to the premises in dispute. What is proposed in the new Clause is that if it is not reasonably practicable to do that, then you shall look round and see what is stated in the rating return. But I find it difficult to conceive of any single test in which the judge would invoke this new Clause, even as regards London, if it were put on the Statute Book, because he has to carry out the Act of 1933, and if it is not reasonably practicable otherwise to find out the standard rent paid in 1914 all that he has to do is to look round the corner and ascertain the rents paid for comparable houses in 1914.

Mr. Ammon: What about the Proviso in the new Clause?

The Solicitor-General: I do not think the Proviso helps. The Clause itself would come into operation only if the machinery of Section 6 of the Act of 1933 broke down, that is to say, if the judge


could not find a comparable house from which he could say what the standard rent would be. There could be no difficulty as regards London, but as regards the Provinces the Clause would not be workable. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Clause.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: With regard to the Solicitor-General's point about the Act of 1933, I think he has failed to note the effect of the wording of the Clause. If the Clause were added to the Bill its machinery would not come into operation unless and until the court was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to ascertain the standard rent by the method laid down in the Act of 1933. If the Solicitor-General is right when he says that it is always practicable in London and no difficulty will arise in London, then as a safeguard against the objection which he had in his mind I would point out that the court itself has to decide whether or not to apply this machinery.
In regard to the other matter that he raised, he scored a point when he said that the statement by the landlord for the

purpose of the valuation list began outside London only in 1925. Therefore, if the Clause were accepted it would have to be verbally amended to meet that point; but the principle is quite easy to apply. It is not true to say that that objection goes to the root of the Clause. When the valuation list was made out in 1914 by the guardians and the assessment was made by the guardians, the landlord either accepted the assessment or appealed against it, and ultimately he had to accept whatever assessment was finally made. That assessment is obviously based on the letting value of the premises, so that all the purposes of the Clause could easily be made to operate with a very slight verbal emendation in a part of the Clause. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the purpose of the Clause is right, I suggest to him that he should accept it and not regard those difficulties to which he has referred as going to the root of the matter.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 211.

Division No. 174.]
AYES.
[5.1 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Mathers, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Maxton, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Messer, F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)


Barnes, A. J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.


Barr, J.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Naylor, T. E.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whiteahapal)
Oliver, G. H.


Benson, G.
Hardie, Agnes
Paling, W.


Bevan, A.
Hayday, A.
Parker, J.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkinson, J. A.


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hicks, E. G.
Price. M. P.


Buchanan, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pritt, D, N.


Burke, W. A.
Hollins, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cape, T.
Hopkin, D.
Ridley, G.


Cassells, T.
Jagger, J.
Riley, B.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ritson, J.


Chater, D.
John, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lee, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Day, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Strauss. G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Summerskill, Edith


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MeGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Gallacher, W.
MacLaren, A.
Thurtle, E.




Tinker, J. J.
Westwood, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Tomlinson, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Walker, J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Watkins, F. C.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)



Watson, W. McL.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Peake, O.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Petherick, M.


Allen, Col. J, Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Apsley, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Procter, Major H. A.


Assheton, R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Radford. E. A.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Blair, Sir R.
Harbord, A.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bossom, A. C.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ross Taylor, w. (Woodbridge)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hepworth, J.
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Bull, B. B.
Holdsworth, H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Holmes, J. S.
Salmon, Sir I.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salt, E. W.


Butcher, H. W.
Hopkinson, A.
Scott, Lord William


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hunter, T.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgh't'n)
James, Wine-Commander A. W. H.
Spens. W. P.


Channon, H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylds)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Christie, J. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Latham, Sir P.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Liddall, W. S.
Thomas, J. P, L.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Little, Sir t. Graham-
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Lloyd, G. W.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Touche, G. C.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Train, Sir J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
MacAndraw, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Crosswder, J. F. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Davison, Sir W. H
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


De Chair, S. S.
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Lleut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


De la Bère, R.
Magnay, T.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maitland, A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Denville, Alfred
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Doland, G. F
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Han H. D. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Markham, S. F.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie 


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mason, Lt.-Col, Hon. G. K. M.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Duggan, H. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wells, S. R.


Eckersley, P. T.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
White, H. Graham


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Ellis, Sir G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Emery, J. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Munro, P.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Everard, W. L.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wragg, H.


Findlay, Sir E.
Nioolson, Hon. H. G.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fleming, E. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Palmer, G. E. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Furness, S. N.
Patrick, C. M.
Mr. Cross and Major Sir James




Edmondson.A

NEW CLAUSE.—(Dwelling houses of low value.)

Section five of the Act of 1933 (which exempts certain dwelling-houses of low value from the restrictions as to the right of possession) shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope and almost expect that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this proposed new Clause. On numerous occasions one has had to call attention to the amazing difference between the treatment meted out in this House to farmers on the one hand and that meted out to agricultural labourers on the other. From 1920 the labourers have suffered disadvantage under rent laws such as the one we are considering to-day. In every other case, under the original Act, alternative accommodation had to be provided if the owner wanted possession but as far as the agricultural labourers were concerned, something less than that was available. If a farmer required possession of the agricultural labourer's cottage he did not proceed straight to the courts to prove that one of the conditions laid down in the original Act had not been fulfilled. He went instead to the county agricultural wages committee which was almost always composed of farmers and landowners and secured a certificate from that body. He then proceeded to the court, which, almost always accepted the certificate as the last word, and the labourer had to depart.
There is another kind of penalty on the agricultural worker. Ever since 1920, as I say, agricultural labourers had been at a disadvantage compared with every other section of tenants in the country. In 1933 when the Opposition were numerically very small another Bill was passed. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) and the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) persuaded the Minister of Health of that time—Sir Hilton Young as he then was—that the Government ought to go a step further and create more disadvantages for agricultural labourers. They imported into the 1933 Act the Section referred to in this new Clause. Section 5 was provided, on the ground, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury argued, that unless

houses where the rent was 2s. 6d. or less were withdrawn from control, owners would be tempted, once they lost tenants, to leave the houses empty, because to accept another tenant would be to create a statutory tenancy and the landlord would then not be able to dispossess the labourer when he wanted to—which the hon. Member thought, was a very serious business. That, however, had been the case for 13 years and no serious problem had accrued, and yet the then Minister of Health, without any further information, advice or guidance produced this Section and embodied it in the 1933 Act.
Now the position from the agricultural labourer's point of view is this. Under the original Act of 1920, the owner had to show either that there were arrears of rent, or that the tenant had committed misconduct and become a nuisance, or that the tenant had given notice and another tenancy had been created, and that then the first tenant had refused to move, or that the owner required the house himself, or one of several other reasons under the Act. If the owner could show that one of these conditions had been fulfilled he could secure possession. This Section 5 eliminated all agricultural labourers' cottages from those conditions, so that now instead of the labourer securing such small advantage as the 1920 Act gave him, even that is withdrawn. Parliament raised the figure from 2s. 6d. to 3s., so that now where the rent is from 3s. downwards the agricultural labourer's cottage is decontrolled except for rent purposes. The owner of the property can get rid of the labourer without any condition whatever.
Therefore, we are asking that that Section of the Act of 1933, when, unfortunately, we had very few Members on these benches and so little technical guidance and assistance that we were taken undue advantage of by the great massed forces of His Majesty's Government, should be repealed. The Minister asks me whether I was here. I was here, and my hon. Friend who was in charge of the opposition to the Bill at that time and I were trying to do the work of six Members. I am not sure that we did any of it effectively, but we did our best in most difficult circumstances. This is one of the results of the numerical weakness of the Opposition, as


was the case from 1931 to 1935. The agricultural labourer living in such a cottage can be turned out at any moment without any conditions and in any set of circumstances if the property owner wants to get rid of him. I am referring to the house which is let at a rent of from 3s. downwards. It is well understood that the wages of most agricultural labourers will not permit of them paying a higher rent than 3s. per week. If they had to pay much more than 3s., plus rates, there would be nothing left for food at all.
The Minister of Health may ask in how many cases agricultural labourers have been evicted in the past year or so. Last year no fewer than zoo cases were dealt with by the National Union of Agricultural Workers. It was thought that these labourers, who were dismissed or whose contract had been worked out, were safeguarded by the 1920 Act, but the landlords knew better. They had the appropriate help, guidance and influence, and these 200 agricultural labourers had to depart. It did not matter whether they had been faithful servants, good tenants, had cared for the property, cultivated the garden, and decorated the railings, if they had any; the moment the contract of service ceased, out they had to go on to the streets. What has been the result?
Since 1921 we have lost approximately 200,000 agricultural labourers from the land. We know from the figures of the Minister that we have lost 70,000 since 1931. I ask the Minister of Health to try and imagine a case of this description where the farmer finds cause for putting off one of his employés. The farmer decides to get possession of the house at the same time because he may not require the man's labour for another three or six months. Sometimes machines are obtained to do the work of the men, who consequently are displaced. What must be the state of mind of the agricultural labourer who find himself without work and without a house? The best he can ever hope to get is 34s. or 35s. a week in wages in an agricultural area, but now he is without work, without a house, and, therefore, without a home for his wife and children. It is not unnatural that such a man should start to make tracks for the town or city. If he is to 'be unemployed, he might as well be unemployed in a town or city as in a rural

area. The Minister knows better than any Member of this House that the kind of house, the rent of which such a person can afford to pay, has not been built. The houses are not available, and as there is no alternative these men migrate to the city or town and join the ranks of the unemployed there, and agriculture probably loses some of its most skilled workers, which it really cannot affard to lose.
Here is a case where the Minister placed agricultural labourers at a disadvantage when there was no justification for it at all. It is true that such a house is controlled for the purpose of rent, but it is decontrolled for the purpose of tenancy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the wisdom, after all these years of serious disadvantage superimposed upon agricultural labourers, at least of giving them such guarantees as are embodied in the 1920 Act. In order to do that he requires to remove the offending Section 5 of the 1933 Act, and I hope that he will see the wisdom of doing it here. It has been said that agriculture is the pet and darling of the Tory party, but nobody can claim that the agricultural labourer has been the pet and darling of the Tory party. I hope at all events that the right hon. Gentleman, who has a very big heart and can on other occasions express real feeling for the downtrodden, will see the wisdom of accepting the new Clause which I have moved.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health straight away, that I was in the House in the last Parliament. I had been back, I think, five days when Section 5 of the 1933 Act was put into the Bill at that time. I do not think that there was any need for my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to say that it was due to the fact that there was only a handful of Members in this House. I think that most hon. Members will agree that from 1931 right away to the next election the little bunch of Labour Members in this House did work for which they could take credit, and we ought not to decry it. I remember very clearly the Minister of Health, the then Sir Hilton Young, conceding the provision to the hon. Member


for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). I did not at that time recognise the implications of it, and our experience from 1933 to date has taught us that it is time the House took out this provision.
The National Union of Agricultural Workers say—and they have plenty of evidence to bear it out—that this Section has had the effect of causing many farm labourers to be evicted, and that it has been tantamount to victimisation. In these days when there is such a decline in the number of people employed on the land in this country—and even the Ridley Committee made some very valuable comments about that decline—it ill becomes a House of this character to treat agricultural workers as inferior to the rest of the workers of the country. While it is true that the Section in the 1933 Act safeguarded the agricultural worker as far as the actual rent was concerned, it left him in an absolutely inferior position. He could be evicted without any appeal to the court.
The right hon. Gentleman claims to have much sympathy—I am not finding fault with it—for those who work on the land. If there is any section of the community who have been compelled to live in bad houses it is many of the skilled farm workers in the countryside. Until the inferiority of treatment of agricultural workers is removed, the decline in their numbers will continue. In nearly every piece of legislation affecting agricultural workers which has been passed during the past three or four years, they have been placed in an inferior position. They are placed in an absolutely inferior position in regard to Unemployment Insurance. They receive lower benefits than the rest of those who are in Unemployment Insurance. The maximum benefit, despite the fact that a man may have six children, is 30s. a week. After nearly five years' experience of the working of Section 5 of the 1933 Act—we can bring abundant evidence that it has been used to the detriment of agricultural workers—we ask the House on this occasion to take it out of the Rent Restrictions Act, and at least assure the agricultural worker that he is not to be placed in an inferior position in regard to rent restriction.

5.26 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)

has made. as he always does, a very able and persuasive speech. I would very much like, after hearing a speech of that kind, and after what he was good enough to say about myself, to do anything which the hon. Member would desire me to do.

Mr. James Griffiths: Why not?

Sir K. Wood: In a good many cases I have no doubt that l should be able to do that, but the difficulties in this matter arise, under the Rent Restrictions Acts and Measures of that kind, where there are claims of a conflicting character, and it is necessary to consider what is the best thing to do. Speaking generally, apart altogether from the merits of the proposed Clause, the best remedy for all the difficulties, as far as housing in the countryside is concerned, is undoubtedly to build more houses. I hope that the Act of Parliament which has just been placed on the Statute Book will mean a considerable addition to the number of houses for agricultural workers in this country at reasonable rents. I have been engaged in the last few days in preparing a communication to the local authorities of the country urging them immediately to avail themselves of that legislation and the very generous subsidy—I think perhaps the most generous subsidy that has been given—to enable houses to be built quickly.
Legislate as we may, the real remedy for the position which the hon. Member has put before the House so vividly is undoubtedly the provision of more houses for agricultural workers at reasonable rents. Perhaps I may be unduly optimistic, but I believe that under this new legislation, we shall be able to do that, or, at any rate, to obtain a considerable addition to the housing accommodation for the agricultural workers in the country districts. I would recall to the House the circumstances in which my predecessor in office, the then Sir Hilton Young, brought in the Section to which the hon. Gentleman has now taken exception and placed it upon the Statute Book. I asked him, not very seriously, whether, in fact, he was in the House at the time the particular Section went through. I was curious enough to read up the Debates, and it was very interesting to observe that the Section went through without any opposition. It may be that the hon. Member for the Don Valley was so exhausted by his efforts the previous


day that he was not present, and it may be that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) did not appreciate the meaning of the Section, but the fact remains that it went through without any objection. My predecessor, Sir Hilton Young, then Minister of Health, explained the Section. It was not done in a hurried manner, because the question was raised in Committee stage and he said that he would reflect on the proposal and see what could be done. It was after some mature consideration that my right hon. predecessor brought forward the proposal. He said—and on the reasons that he gave I largely base my case to-day—
It is to enable the best use to be made by the agricultural world of cottages for agricultural and estate management purposes.
I would emphasise that sentence, because what we are seeking to do is to achieve the best that is possible in this difficult kind of legislation for the agricultural industry as a whole. The then Minister of Health went on to say:
The new Clause proposes to do this by providing that in the case of cottages let at 2s. 6d. a week or less—that is a category that covers practically nothing except agricultural cottages—the provisions of the Act of 1920, except those. which limit the permitted rent, shall cease to apply if the landlord wishes to obtain possession. It will be apparent to the House that this Clause deals only with cottages which are in use for agricultural or estate management purposes. In effect it provides an alternative method of obtaining possession for the sake of the management of the farm or estate—an alternative to the present method under which the owner has to get a certificate from the local authority to the effect that the House is required for agricultural purposes. This is considered to be a more convenient method."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1933; col. 37, Vol. 278.]
If we delete this Section we should be left with the earlier provision on the Statute Book which the hon. Member thinks has not worked well. I rather gather that he considers the Committee is packed with landlords.

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said that from 1920 to 1933 the agricultural labourer had been suffering a disadvantage as compared with all other tenants, but under the Act of 1933 it was a still greater disadvantage, and in over 200 cases last year tenants who were dismissed summarily from their

houses would have had a chance of remaining even under the disadvantageous provisions of the 1930 Act.

Sir K. Wood: I would point out to my hon. Friend that you have to take into account the general interests of the agricultural industry as a whole. Let me quote what Sir Hilton Young said in 1933:
There are two points I would emphasise to enable the House to understand the bearing of the Clause.
First, it leaves the present sitting tenant fully protected in his tenancy, and, secondly, future tenants also, who under the law as it is now would have no protection at all, will have the protection of a limitation of rent. The Clause preserves the pool of small houses and carries out the general policy of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1933; col. 38, Vol. 278.]
I think it is a reasonable view of the position to take into account the interests of the industry as a whole. The Section which the hon. Member wishes to delete from the Statute Book does give protection so far as rent is concerned. Agricultural housing was carefully considered by the Ridley Committee, although there was some question as to whether it came within their terms of reference.

Mr. T. Williams: It was absolutely excluded from the terms of reference to the Marley Committee, and the 1933 Act was intended and actually did carry out the recommendations of the Marley Committee. But in the terms of reference agricultural cottages were excluded.

Sir K. Wood: I think that is a perfectly correct statement, but it is fair to add that apart from the evidence of the National Union of Agricultural Workers no other evidence was taken. Therefore, I must ask the House to rest upon the Clause in the Bill and deal with the matter as I think it can best be dealt with, that is, to proceed as rapidly as we can with further housing accommodation.

5.40 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: There is no greater artist than the Minister of Health in the gift of persuasion, but he gave away the whole show in his opening remarks. I am not an agricultural labourer, or a rural Member, although I was at one time a Member for an agricultural constituency. The right hon. Gentleman has


said that there is no more appalling problem than the house shortage in the agricultural community, and that he was going to carry on a great campaign for building houses with the exceptional subsidy which the State was giving to stimulate house building. The right hon. Gentleman is a great organiser and propagandist, but even he with all his enthusiasm, with all his platform campaign, cannot turn out houses to replace the 150,000 houses concerned, in a week, or a fortnight or a year. In the meantime thousands of honest people who are the backbone of the country are in tied houses at the mercy of their employers. It is an out-of-date position and would not be tolerated in any of our urban areas. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is suggesting that these shackles on the life of the agricultural labourer shall be removed, that he shall feel some security in his home; that if he loses his job he will not at the same time lose his home. That is not an unreasonable proposition. If at the end of three years the right hon. Gentleman can show that as a result of his campaign there is a surplus of houses provided by local authorities, then by all means go back on the Section in the Act of 1933, but until these houses have been built and are available, until his campaign has succeeded, it is not unreasonable to put the proposed new Clause in the Bill.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: The Minister has said that he wants to provide agricultural cottages at a reasonable rent. The rent will have to be reasonable indeed, considering the income which an agricultural worker gets. Country cottages are essentially low in rent, and very many of them are as low in standard as they are in rent. During the last few years people from urban areas have been coming into the rural places in motor cars and have cast envious eyes on the cottages. They have got them for week-end cottages. There is now a tendency for agricultural workers to be displaced in order that richer persons may get these cottages for the week-end. These richer people are able to pay more. They are also able to do something to the garden railings and do other necessary repairs which the landlord has evaded. The agricultural worker cannot afford to do this out of his meagre wages or the unemployment benefit which

he receives, and he is being displaced by these week-end visitors.
It is unfortunate, but true, that these worthy agricultural workers are compelled to occupy cottages which are too small because they cannot afford to pay a higher rent for larger places. It is unfortunate, but true, that agricultural workers are condemned to worse conditions all round than workers in the industrial areas. They have now the benefits of the agricultural workers' insurance, but if you consider the low wages which are fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board you will realise that 3s. a week is a very big rent for them. These tenants have no safeguard and they ask the Minister to agree to this proposal. We want the agricultural worker to have at least one secure tenancy, the security of a home, even if he has not security of tenure in his occupation. Is it to be wondered that rural depopulation is going on? Two hundred agricultural workers have been evicted during the last year. In five years that means 1,000, and where are they to go except into the towns to try and get work there? So long as these anomalies remain so long will you have the problem of rural depopulation.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has suggested that my right hon. Friend will take three or four years to complete his housing programme, and as that is about the time when there will be a General Election, it implies that the hon. Member expects the Government to win the election—a very comforting thought. I want to make a request to my right hon. Friend to meet us if he can in this matter. I feel that at the present time, when an agricultural worker's family has to leave a cottage, there is a very grave danger of that family migrating to the nearest town and taking a house there at a higher rent, and although earning higher wages, having a net income which is no greater. Such depopulation of the countryside should, if possible, be avoided, and I hope that the Minister will do what he can to assist us in this matter.

5.46 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I hope the Minister will not leave this matter as it is. This is not a new question, and anybody who lives in a rural area or owns property


there knows the difficulties connected with tied cottages. The whole question of tied cottages is no longer considered in the same way as it was previously, when the idea was that all cottages ought to belong to the farm and that when the tenancy of the farm changed, the farm labourers should be turned out of their cottages. In modern farming there is not the need for the same number of tied houses, but the principle of the tied house still remains. With mechanisation, there is no doubt that fewer tied houses are needed than was formerly the case. I am certain that it will not be possible to get proper accommodation for farm workers until we get rid of the tied-house system. I do not think the elimination of that system would cause anything like the difficulty which some people think, and I believe it would cause a real stir to get proper housing in agricultural districts, not only from the Ministry but from the owners of the property, and people who still have a large obligation to see that the workers on the land are not in a different condition from those who live in the towns.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health was asking the House to believe a little too much when he said that in this class of house control of rents is continued, and that therefore, that question does not arise, and that we are discussing the control of tenure. Our experience is that control of rents is not of much use unless it is accompanied by control of tenure. There are many instances in which rents far in excess of the legal rents are connived at by the tenant himself, and unless the tenant pays a higher rent, the landlord, by this power, is able to get him out of the house. Part of the protection given by the old law was that the tenant could go to the committee and raise the matter, and if the committee had any judicial sense, it would reject the application of the landlord for possession of the house unless there was proper evidence. The Ridley Committee

pointed out—I am not now dealing with tied cottages as such, but with free cottages—that what is happening in the countryside in many instances is that, within a reasonable radius of big cities, there is an invasion of the countryside by large numbers of people who can afford to take week-end cottages.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not considering the best interests of the agricultural industry in allowing this condition of affairs to continue. This would have been all right, as the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said, if there had been such an increase in rural housing that rural workers could find other accommodation. In that case, this problem would not affect the rural population. But surely it is to the grave disadvantage of the agricultural industry if such high rents are charged for these houses, as a result of the connivance of which I have spoken, or if the houses are freed in order that urban workers and comparatively well-off people may live in them, thus depriving the agricultural industry of a number of skilled labourers. It seems to me that if the Minister took into account the best interests of the industry, he would try to keep these people in the countryside. I suggest that one of the ways of doing that would be to give security of tenure to the agricultural workers, who would be happy enough not to be in tied cottages. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would find a large measure of support in all parts of the House if he would give further consideration to this matter which, after all, is not a fundamental one, but one on which, nevertheless, he could do a great deal to preserve for the countryside those people who are indigenous to it and who are so valuable to the agricultural industry.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 210.

Division No. 175.]
AYES.
[5.53 p.m.


Acland, R. T. O. (Barnstaple)
Banfield, J. W.
Broad, F. A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Barnes, A. J.
Bromfield, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Barr, J.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)


Adamson, W. M.
Bellenger, F. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Buchanan, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Benson, G.
Burke, W. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bevan, A.
Cape, T.




Cartland, J. R. H.
Hopkin, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Cassells, T.
Jagger, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cluse. W. S.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cocks, F. S.
John, W.
Salt, E. W.


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Or. A. (Bermondsey)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Daggar, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton T. M.


Dalton, H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Davidson. J. J. (Maryhill)
Lathan, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lee, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Ede, J. C.
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambetn, N.)


Foot, D. M.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Summerskill, Edith


Frankel, D.
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gardner, B. W.
McGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
MacLaren, A.
Thurtle, E.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Green. W. H. (Deptford)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomlinson, G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maxton, J.
Viant, S. P.


Granfell D. R.
Messer, F.
Walker, J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Montague, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walton, W. McL.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.
Westwood, J.


Groves, T. E.
Naylor, T. E.
White, H. Graham


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Hardie, Agnes
Parker, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Hayday, A.
Pearson, A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Hicks, E. G.
Quibell. D. J. K.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ridley, G.



Holdsworth, H.
Riley, B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hannah, I. C.


Albery, Sir Irving
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cross, R. H.
Harbord, A.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Culverwell. C. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Assheton, R.
Davies, Major Sir G. F, (Yeovil)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
De Chair, S. S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
De la Bère, R.
Hepworth, J.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Denville, Alfred
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Doland. G. F.
Holmes, J. S.


Bernays, R. H.
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Blair, Sir R.
Duckworth W. R. (Moss Side)
Hopkinson, A.


Boulton, W. W.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duggan, H. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duncan, J, A. L.
Hunter, T.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Elliot Rt. Hon. W. E
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Elmley, Visoount
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Bull, B. B.
Emery. J. F.
James, Wing-Commander A, W. H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Joel, D. J. B.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Erskine-Hill, A. G
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


[...]Carver, Major W. H.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Keeling, E. H.


Cary, R. A.
Everard, W. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Cazatel, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Findlay, Sir E.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Channon, H.
Fleming, E. L.
Latham, Sir P.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Fox Sir G. W. G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Christie, J. A.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Furness, S. N.
Liddall, W. S.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Fvfe D. P. M.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Clarry. Sir Reginald
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Lloyd, G. W.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Loftus, P. C.



Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith. S.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Cooper. Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C G.



Cox, H. B. Trevor
Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Craven-Ellis, W
Gridley, Sir A. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Croft Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Grimston. R. V
McEwen, Capt. J. H, F.







McKie, J. H.
Procter, Major H. A.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Macquisten, F. A.
Radford, E. A.
Storey, S.


Magnay, T.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Maitland, A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ramebotham, H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Markham, S. F.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tate, Mavis C.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Touche, G. C.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Miteham)
Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ross Taylor, w. (Woodbridge)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Rowlands, G.
Warrender, Sir V.


Munro, P.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Nioholaon, G. (Farnham)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Nioolson, Hon. H. G.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wells, S. R.


O'Connor, Sir Terenco J.
Sandys, E. D.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Scott, Lord William
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Shaw, Major P S. (Wavertree)
Willeughby de Eresby, Lord


Palmer, G. E. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Patrick, C. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Peake, O.
Smiles, Lieut,-Colonel Sir W. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Peat, C. U.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wragg, H.


Petherick, M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spens. W. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Major




Sir James Edmondson.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Production of documents by local authorities.)

For the purpose of obtaining information relating to the standard rent or rateable value, or other information required, for the purposes of the principal Acts, the Act of 1933 and this Act, the landlord or tenant of any dwelling-house or his duly authorised agent shall, notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, be entitled at all reasonable times and without payment of any fee to inspect and make copies of or extracts from any valuation lists, returns, or other documents relating to rating in the possession or under the control of the rating authority.—[Mr. Silverman.]

Brought up, and read the First time. 6.1 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This again is one of those short, non-controversial Clauses that I move with ever diminishing optimism. I do not wish to be discourteous, but I must say that I find the much vaunted sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman just a little wooden; at any rate, not much comes out of it, but I am not without hope that perhaps in this instance something may be done. What we are asking for here is that where a local authority has documents and information relevant to the determination of any question in dispute between the tenant and the landlord of controlled premises, either the landlord or the tenant or the duly accredited agent of either shall have the right to go to that local authority and have produced to him

the documents and the papers without payment of any fee. I am quite aware that a great many local authorities, or at any rate some of them, do that already, and I think it will not be denied that a good many local authorities do not. Even if there were more authorities that did it than did not, it would still be worth while to pass this Clause, which would, on that assumption, be merely declaratory of the prevailing practice. If there be a great number of instances—and I think there are a great many—where local authorities do not produce documents, then I think the House will feel that it is high time that there was legislation to compel them to do so.
The existing situation works no hardship to the landlord, because there is a statutory right to inspect the valuation lists on payment of a proper fee, which is not likely to worry the landlord. If he needs the information, he will pay his fee and get it, but you are dealing, in the case of tenants, with a mass of very poor people indeed, to whom the expense of another shilling or hall-crown is a matter of very serious import. There can be no doubt that a good deal of hardship and difficulty would be removed at very small cost if this Clause were accepted, and it is difficult to see what harm could be done by it. Even the landlord gets the benefit out of it. It is quite impartial. We have suggested


that the facilities should he equally available and equally free to both landlord and tenant, and in all the circumstances my optimism remains. I still hope to see a Clause of this kind accepted, but if I am wrong, I shall be greatly interested to hear on what conceivable ground this eminently reasonable proposal can be opposed.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I beg to second the Motion.
I think my hon. Friend covered most of the ground with regard to this Clause, and I am hopeful that the Government will accept it. To me, it would seem rather strange that as things are to-day with regard to our housing problem, our rating problem, and our rent problem, this small concession should be denied to people who undoubtedly in the future will desire this information. I have heard hon. and right hon. Members on all sides of the House refer to the various intricacies of our rating system and our housing problem. On the Committee stage I think it was generally agreed that to understand the intricacies of the various Housing Acts, one would need to be a lawyer, an expert politician, and a medical officer of health combined, and even with that training it would still be very difficult.
Right throughout the country, in many cities, we have tenants' associations, which take up these difficulties of the average tenant, who cannot he expected to understand the Housing Acts or our rating system, and they undertake to approach various people and to state the tenants' case wherever that may be necessary. All that we are asking is that tenants or their representatives, along with any other interests—and we are giving an equal share to all interested parties—should have access to this information. Personally, I would still like to see the landlord made to pay a certain fee for this information, but we cannot deal with personal feelings here, and therefore we put forward the perfectly fair proposal that all sections who are interested in our housing problem should have access to this very necessary information in the event of any dispute arising. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Clause and at least make it clear to the

tenants that even on these niggardly points the Government do not always oppose them.

6.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): With one part of this new Clause I can say at the outset that I have the utmost sympathy. I, of course, agree that where the local authority has information relevant to the landlords' and tenants' interests, landlords and tenants must have access to that information, and they have a statutory right to it. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that in Section 60 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, it is laid down that any ratepayer may at all reasonable times inspect and take copies or extracts of any rate book, valuation list, notice of objection, etc., whether in his own rating area or in some other rating area. He can do this without payment in the case of documents which are not more than 10 years old, but in the case of documents more than 10 years old he has to pay a fee, I think, of 2s. 6d. in the provinces and 1s. in London. This Clause merely proposes, in effect, that this fee of 1s. or 2s. 6d. shall be waived when the object is an inspection connected with the Rent Acts. But if this fee is waived for one object, why should it not be waived for all objects? In the majority of cases it would be the landlord who would require to inspect these documents for his own purposes, and why should a landlord go on the rates? Why should he not pay a proper fee?

Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Member accept the Clause without the landlords being included?

Mr. Bernays: The fee is, of course, to recompense the local authorities for the extra time and trouble caused to their staff in getting out these old records. There seems to be no reason why a local authority should be denied some recompense for the extra work entailed when perhaps it requires an inspection of records of something like a quarter of a century old. If this new Clause were accepted, it could be justified only on the basis that it is wrong to charge any fee for the inspection of any public documents of any kind. That is a position that I am sure the hon. Member, on reflection, would not wish to take up. I


hope, therefore, that after this explanation he will not think it necessary to press his new Clause to a Division.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I am sorry that the Government cannot meet us on a simple point like this. We have been very reasonable over this Bill, as the Minister has admitted. Here we are asking that when a tenant or a landlord goes to a local authority and for a public purpose, to enable a Statute passed by this House to function properly—and, indeed, without these documents it cannot function properly——

Mr. Bernays: What public purpose would be served?

Mr. Johnston: The fixation of a proper standard of rent, and without the knowledge obtained from these documents that cannot be done. The hon. Gentleman representing the Government says, "It is all right; if it is only nine years old, there will be no fee charged, but if it is 10 years and one month old, there is something wrong about it, and we charge a fee." Why should that be? I could understand the Government taking up this attitude if an inspection of these documents was for a private purpose, or would benefit the applicant or the searcher, but that is not so here. What is required by Statute is that all reasonable facilities shall be provided for fixing a standard rent. The local authorities are in possession of the information, and we ask here that it shall be compulsory upon them to disclose that information, back into 1915 or 1914, as the case may be. The Government say, "We have no objection to that, but if an applicant goes to a local authority and searches back for more than 10 years, we are going to charge him a fee." It is true that a local authority cannot refuse to give facilities for an inspection, but what they are doing here, and very frequently perhaps to very poor people, is making a charge of Is. unnecessarily. This is not a big point compared with the extraordinary robbery that is being committed in the rest of this Bill. We shall have something to say about the extent of that robbery later on, but this is a very small matter; and it is indicative of the Government's attitude to the whole problem that on a small point like this they adopt purely legalistic

difficulties and insist upon charging 1s. unnecessarily. I hope my hon. Friend will press this Clause to a Division.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: I would like to ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he sees any difficulty in the way of a local authority providing the information which is required in this new Clause. Does he think that there is any rating authority in Scotland which cannot produce the valuation roll for 1914? I am not a rating authority, but I can provide the hon. and learned Gentleman with the valuation roll for half the county in which I live. When rent restriction first came into operation I found it necessary to use the 1914 valuation roll frequently. I found that owners of property were charging their tenants more than they were legally entitled to do, and I had to go back over and over again to the 1914 valuation roll to find out what the standard rent was. I have that roll to this day, and I could tell the hon. and learned Gentleman the rate of any house in the western part of Fife on 3rd August, 1914—and I would not charge him anything for it.
I have many times had to provide tenants with particulars of the rents they were paying on that date. What difficulty is there in the way of the local authorities in Scotland providing this information to an owner or to a tenant who is in dispute with an owner? Why should there be the payment of a fee for information of that kind? It is a small point and I am surprised that the Government should take up such a stubborn attitude to it. I could understand the difficulties of local authorities if they had not got the information, but the authorities in Scotland published it long before 1914. They retain the valuation rolls and are able at any time to go back and prepare valuations for any period over a considerable number of years.

6.19 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. James Reid): I would not like to be too certain, but I think the position is that after six years copies of the valuation rolls are sent to the Register House at Edinburgh for preservation. All researches there entail a small fee. It is true that in most areas the local authorities also keep copies of the valuation


rolls, and my understanding is that where a fee is charged it is, generally speaking, charged for giving a written extract of the entry or entries in which the inquirer is interested. I do not think there is much mere inspection. I made some inquiries into this matter and was told that the greater part of the inspections are by landlords who seek for particulars with a view to selling or buying property. That is not surprising because all this inspection for rent restriction purposes has been done long ago, and it is in a very rare case that inspection would be required in future. If we were to alter the law to-day it would only alter it for the benefit of 1 per cent. of the people who are in doubt of their standard rent, the other 99 per cent. having got the information without this provision.

6. 21 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: It is not sufficient to say that this proposal affects only a small number of people and that, therefore, there is no need to make the concession. The reason why we are having no concessions on the Bill is because the House is under a guillotine in regard to it. If you had not put in a Clause in this Bill by a trick you would have had to concede many of the demands of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that by a piece of improper blackmail——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The things which the hon. Member is asking show how advisable is the rule that Members should address the Chair.

Mr. Bevan: I did not intend to be disrespectful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We have had from the Solicitor-General for Scotland an answer which says, in effect, that the Government will not accept the new Clause because it affects only a small number of people, and I was making an observation about the attitude of the Government in Committee and to-day, and suggesting that the time has arrived when the House should ask the Government whether they intend to make any concessions at all. The reason we are not having any concessions is that the Government know that we cannot hold up the opposition to this Bill much longer because of the Clause which continues in operation the control of Class C houses. It has been suggested that there is a difficulty in England in this

matter and that England is different from Scotland. To arrive at the standard rent in England you have to know what the rates were in 1914, because in most of the areas before the houses affected came under the Rent Restrictions Acts the rates were paid to the landlord and were included in the gross rent.
To get the standard rent in 1914 you had to go to the local authority to see what the rates were in that year. By a deduction of the rates that were paid from the gross rent you arrived at the net rent and added the 40 per cent. allowed under the Acts. It is wrong to say that it is the landlord who is usually affected. It is the tenant almost invariably. I have been to local authorities on countless occasions on behalf of tenants to find out what the rates were. That is still necessary in many parts of the country, and why should poor people who are contesting the right of a landlord to charge more rent be subjected to an unnecessary fee? It is for them a big matter, although it is to us a small matter. I must say that the Government are showing the most stupid obduracy in holding out against every reasonable Amendment which is being moved from this side. Were it not for a most improper piece of Parliamentary blackmail used against us, the Government would not have this Bill as easily as they are having it.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is getting very excited about not very much. Administratively the inspection of old records involves a certain amount of expense to the local authorities, and there is, therefore, a case for having sometime limit after which a charge should be made for an inspection. Hon. Members opposite are not always so solicitous about people who are not very well off. I cannot go and find out the date of my birth without having to pay a fee, and if I want a certificated copy I have to pay a further fee. Only the other day hon. Members opposite were proposing that any man joining the Army should be put to this expense. The number of cases of that kind would be substantially greater than the number for whom their hearts are bleeding at this moment.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: We cannot abolish that in this Bill. What we are asking for now


is something that can be done in this Bill. Everybody who has had experience of these matters knows that it is poor people in the main who are anxious to have the information. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) says that inspection would involve the local authority in some research work. Since when has it not been the duty of a local authority to provide service to the people after whom it is looking? I know local authorities which will go to any amount of trouble in this direction because they look upon it as their duty to serve the people.

Mr. H. G. Williams: They will still be free to do that.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not asking that they should be still free to do it. I am asking that what many people look upon as an elementary right for every citizen in a district should be the elementary right of every citizen in the country.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane Mitchell) seems rather amused that we should desire to continue this discussion. I hope that the large number of small tenants in Streatham who have had occasion to consult me on these particular points, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of their representation, will take note of the attitude adopted by the hon. Member. The Parliamentary Secretary over-stated the problem so far as it relates to England. I have never professed to understand the rating system of Scotland. I believe that you have to be brought up on the shorter and longer Catechisms before you can get the most elementary acquaintance with the rating system of Scotland. I have, however, had some experience of the rating system of England, and I know that the only documents tenants require to inspect for this purpose are the rate book for the half-year in which the War broke out and the rate book for the current half-year. No great amount of search is involved by the local authority, because they know which of the rate books the tenant will want to see. That rate book is kept easily accessible and can be produced at once.
It seems anomalous that in certain areas the local authorities regard this, if not as their statutory duty, at least as a social duty that is imposed on them. The only calculation that is required is to ascertain the amount of rates actually paid

for the half-year, divide it by 26, and deduct it from the rent. That is the figure which is required. There are a large number of small people who wish to ascertain whether they have been fairly treated, because it has been my experience with regard to controlled tenants that when the rates have gone up the landlord has always known of the rise and made the necessary adjustments to the rent, but that on those occasions when the rates have gone down——

Mr. Macquisten: They never go down.

Mr. Ede: On those occasions—and in those districts outside Scotland—when rates have gone down, the landlord has never apparently heard of it. Cases have been brought to my notice where tenants have been overcharged for a considerable period, and before they can get the matter put right they have to ascertain what the rates were in 1914 and what was the standard rent. I sincerely hope that on so small a matter the Minister of Health may be able to meet us. I do not think it is right that poor people should be charged for the production of a book which is in constant use. because it imposes no real expense upon the local authorities.

Mr. Johnston: By leave of the House may I draw the attention of the Government to a statement made in the Marley Committee's report? In paragraph 109, on page 51, they state:
It has been brought to our notice that every year the question of determining the standard rent of a controlled house becomes more difficult, because the necessary records relating to 1914 are often not available.
That statement is the justification for this Clause.

Mr. H. G. Williams: On a point of Order. If this Clause is carried a charge which does not now exist will be imposed upon local authorities, because they will have to incur expenditure which at the moment they do not incur. Therefore, a charge will be created and I would ask whether it is in order to move a Clause which may impose a charge upon a local authority.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that this Clause is concerned with something in the nature of a fee for services rendered.

Mr. H. G. Williams: The proposal is to remit a fee. By the remission of the fee


the burden falling upon the local authority will be increased, and the net effect ultimately will be that to a fractional extent the rates will be increased. [Interruption.] It does not matter how small a fraction it is, the principle applies, because it imposes a charge upon the ratepayers.

Mr. Speaker: In similar cases it has not been held to be a charge upon the public.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I am amazed at the point of Order put forward by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). What we are asking for in this new Clause has been done by many local authorities since 1915. Scores and scores of tenants and landlords went to the rating office immediately the first Rent Restrictions Act came into operation in order to ascertain the standard rent, and they go to this day. Only the other week a tenant came to my house wanting to know whether he was being charged a proper rent so far as the Rent Restrictions Acts were concerned. I sent him to the rating officer, who showed him the books which gave him the answer. All we are asking the Government to do is to say that every authority must give to a tenant or to a landlord the information they require on this matter without any charge. The Parliamentary Secretary started by saying that he had a lot of sympathy with the suggestion.

Mr. Bernays: I said that, of course, I had sympathy with the idea that these documents should be available to those who want them, but it was only with that idea that I expressed sympathy, and I said that point was already covered.

Mr. Griffiths: The Parliamentary Secretary started off with sympathy, just as the Minister for Health started by expressing sympathy for the proposal of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I hope that the Minister, now that he has come in, will see the rightness and the justice of the application we make and will say, "Yes, I can see the light and we will accept the Clause."

6.36 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I desire to support the Clause on the same grounds as the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) namely, that the practice of

giving this information without charge has been followed by the Corporation of which I am a member. Any other course would be short-sighted and somewhat ludicrous, particularly when one remembers that no fee is charged to persons seeking health information or information relating to education, air-raid precautions, town-planning changes, the production of plans relating to the diversion of drains, and important and intricate questions of finance. The local authority in Newcastle has not at any time, so far as my information goes—and I have been a member for many years—thought fit to make a charge for any of those services, which are infinitely more intricate than what is asked for here. All that is required is a sight of the rate book for 1914, and surely that will not necessitate an increase in staff or entail additional expenditure. We are very anxious, as the Government profess to be, to give tenants the facility for getting information to guard themselves against being overcharged—and to prevent in some cases their being undercharged. We want to put the tenant upon an equality with the landlord. It is idle to say that these poor people can easily pay the shilling which might be the charge. It is true that our Corporation do charge Is. for a sight of any of the minutes of the Corporation, but that is the only case in which any charge is made. If we are to protect the poor tenants we ought to pass this Clause.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: In some places they charge 2s. 6d. for this information, and in London 1s. 6d. or is. Anyone can go to the Register of Joint Stock Companies at Somerset House and spend a whole day going over a register of shares—having the book brought down—for is. It does not seem to me that there is any justification for charging a fee in this case. It is not difficult for landlords to get the information, because they or their agents keep books, but the tenant has not got the information, and it is only an elementary and ordinary act of courtesy that he should be supplied with it. If one goes into a post office and asks to look up an address in the telephone book the post office does not charge a fee. Many people ring up on the telephone to ask the time, and the exchanges give the time without always troubling to put the subscriber through to the time-clock. I


am told that at some places they were besieged with inquiries when Summer Time came in. It is unfortunate that it should be necessary to have to move a Clause like this—I think it is a little wider than is necessary and might be limited—and it seems a monstrous thing that we should have to have a discussion about something which all local authorities ought to do as a matter of course.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: For the reason put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) I do not think we ought to close this discussion without pressing the Minister to meet us. I remember that during the passage of another Bill recently the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) spoke once or twice in favour of local authorities being put in a position to obtain certain information. On the Coal Bill the point was raised that local authorities should have the right to search much more complicated documents than a rate book. Those who had been asked to speak for them said that when they were planning the future of their areas they ought to have the right to look up the plans of old mining developments and prospective developments as a right, and without fee, and that concession was made to them by the President of the Board of Trade. I believe the hon. Member for South Croydon supported it. He

was not in any way averse to pushing responsibilities and charges upon the Coal Commission, although the more expenses the Coal Commission have to meet the less chance there is of the poor miner getting any more money. He was not concerned then about the poor miner being deprived of "a bob" because of expenses being charged upon the Commission. Now he is concerned about the rates.

Surely the Minister of Health knows that there are local authorities which give this information as a service, and must have recognised that they have a perfect right to do so, otherwise the auditors would have been busy. It is a primary duty of a local authority to look after the interests of its people, and first of all the interests of the poorest of the people, who are often exploited, and to whom Is. as a search fee would be an enormous sum. For those reasons I do not think we ought to divide without pressing the Minister to give way. Surely this is a matter on which he can make a concession.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Perhaps I may be allowed to correct a mistake——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speakerrose—

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 199.

Division No. 176.
AYES.
6.44 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Daggar, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Dalton, H.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Adamson, W. M.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hicks, E. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Ammon, C. G.
Ede, J. C.
Holdsworth, H.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Hollins, A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hopkin, D.


Banheld, J. W.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jagger, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Barr, J.
Foot, D. M.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Bellenger F. J.
Frankel, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Gardner, B. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Benson G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Kelly, W. T.


Bevan, A.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Broad, F. A.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Kirby, B. V.


Bromfield, W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lathan, G.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lawton, J. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Grenfell, D. R.
Leach, W.


Buchanan, G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Lee, F.


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Leslie, J. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Logan, D. G.


Cape, T.
Groves, T. E.
Lunn, W.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Cassells, T.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
McEntee, V. La T.


Chater, D.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacLaren, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Hardie, Agnes
Maclean, N.


Cocks, F. S.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Macquisten, F. A.


Cove, W. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Mainwaring, W H.


Cripps, Hen. Sir Stafford
Hayday, A.
Mathers, G.




Maxton, J.
Ritson, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Messer, F.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Tomlinson, G.


Milner, Major J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Montague, F.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Walker, J.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Salt, E. W.
Watkins, F. C.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Watson, W. McL.


Muff, G.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Westwood, J.


Naylor, T. E.
Sexton, T. M.
White, H. Graham


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Silverman, S. S.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Paling, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Parker, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Leas- (K'ly)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Parkinson, J. A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wilson, C. H. (Atteraliffe)


Pearson, A.
Sorenson, R. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Price, M. P.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Pritt, D. N.
Summerskill, Edith
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C


Quibell, D. J. K.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Ridley, G.
Thorne, W.



Riley, B.
Thurtle, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. John.




NOES.


Acland Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Adams, S. V. T. (Loeds, W.)
Everard, W. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Albery, Sir Irving
Findlay, Sir E.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fleming, E. L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Apsley, Lord
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Assheton, R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Furness, S. N.
Munro, P.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P, H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Gower, Sir R. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terenee J.


Bernays, R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Blair, Sir R.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Boulton, W. W.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hannah, I. C.
Patrick, C. M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peake, O.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Harbord, A.
Peat, C. U.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Harvey, Sir G.
Petherick, M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bull, B. B.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pilkington, R.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ponsonby, Col C. E.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Procter, Major H. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Radford, E. A.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hepworth, J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Channon, H,
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Holmes, J. S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hopkinson, A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Colville, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Richards, G. W (Skipton)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Haek., N.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hunter, T.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Hutchinson, G. C.
Rowlands, G.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M, R.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Crookshank. Capt. H. F. C.
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cross, R. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cruddas. Col. B.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Sandys, E. D.


Culverwell, C. T.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Scott, Lord William


Davies. C. (Montgomery)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


De Chair, S. S.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


De la Bère, R.
Lloyd, G. W.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Danville, Alfred
Loftus, P. C.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Doland, G. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crews)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Spens, W. P.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Duggan H. J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Storey, S.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Eckersley, P. T
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Magnay, T.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Maitland, A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Markham, S. F.
Touche, G. C.


Errington, E.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan







Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wells, S. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Wragg, H.


Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)



Warrender, Sir V.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr.



Wayland, Sir W. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Grimston.


Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Wood, Hen. C. I. C.

NEW CLAusE.—(increase of rent in respect of improvements.)

For the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the Act of 1933, improved fixtures or fittings shall not be deemed to include new or improved fixtures or fittings provided in pursuance of an order of the sanitary authority, or replacements of fixtures or fittings due to the disrepair of the fixtures or fittings replaced.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This problem has exercised the minds of every Royal Commission on the Rent Acts. I could go back to previous inquiries, but I will content myself with quoting from the report of the Marley Committee, which the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps look up. On page 34, the committee said:
Reports of the previous committees leave no room for doubt that the 25 per cent. increase was expressly awarded for this purpose (of repairs on an adequate scale), and, in our view, a tenant has a right to expect that his landlord will do his duty in this respect.
The succeeding paragraph says, while they made no recommendation for altering the permitted increase:
We are satisfied that owners can no longer claim that the permitted increase is not adequate for its purpose. The evidence that we have received, however, shows that in many districts repairs are not being adequately carried out, although the law provides ample machinery of a varied character for securing that they should be.
What are the facts, within the knowledge of, I am sure, every Member of this House? The law provides that the owner of a controlled house shall be permitted to add 25 per cent. to the standard or 1914 rent for the purpose of providing repairs on his property. The law does not say that an owner must provide repairs every year or that when he has taken the 25 per cent. from his tenant he must at any time provide the repairs upon his property. All that the law says is that the owner shall be entitled to exact from his tenant 25 per cent. for the purpose, which he can exercise or not as he chooses, of executing repairs upon his property. In any other

transaction, if one party to a contract takes a sum of money annually from the pockets of the other party to the contract, and does not fulfil the obligation which is the foundation of his taking the money, he is, I submit, guilty of fraud and theft. Yet here he is permitted to go on doing this year after year with no penalty attachable to him in the courts for his failure to provide the repairs; he is permitted to exact year after year the 25 per cent. from his tenant.
At the end of the day, if and when a local authority comes to him and says: "Your property has been allowed to fall into serious disrepair and it is now, in our view, a menace to the public health" —it may, indeed, have been a menace to the private health of the tenant for many years, owing to the failure to undertake repairs—"and we order you to provide X.Y.Z. improvements in the way of new fitments," what does the owner do then? He continues to draw his 25 per cent. but, if you please, he is now permitted to add 8 per cent. per annum for the cost of the new fitments. I would ask the Minister whether he can give us any justification why it should be 8 per cent. That is a very handsome rate of interest for a yield on a man's investment in maintaining his own property, and the law permits it in addition to the 25 per cent. for repairs.
Royal Commissions have been unable to see any means of stopping it. It is known that there are hundreds of thousands of properties up and down the length and breadth of the land where no repairs are undertaken. Year after year nothing is done. At the end of the day another 8 per cent. of the cost of what are called new structural repairs is added on to the backs of the tenants. I have tried at Question Time in this House to extract from the Minister figures and information as to the fluctuations in the cost of repairs since 1920, when this permitted 25 per cent. was put on. The Minister gave figures which showed that there has been a progressive reduction in the cost of repairs, so that if it was right and proper in 1920 to give a proprietor 25 per cent. it is wrong that he


should get 25 per cent. now. The right hon. Gentleman gave figures to show—I think he quoted them from the Marley Committee's Report—that the cost had fallen from somewhere about 280 to 150 or 180; in other words had fallen about one-third. Yet the owners continue drawing that 25 per cent. If it was right for them to get it in 1920 it is wrong that they should get it now, even supposing they had to spend the money on repairs.
I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland at Question Time what the movement of prices was, and he answered me most unfairly. He simply recited the English figures. His Department knows that the movements of costs in Scotland are different from those in England, and the Department is in possession of figures showing the movement in Scotland. The Government is aware that hundreds of thousands of owners are not spending the money and that under one guise or another new fixtures are charged 8 per cent. upon the tenant. We are asking that no fixture or fittings shall be chargeable which is put in by order of a sanitary authority or in replacement of a fixture or fitting due to disrepair of the existing fixture for which a 25 per cent. increase of rent has been charged for perhaps 15 or 20 or more years. We raised the matter in Committee and the right hon. Gentleman gave us smooth words, but no one knows better than he that the present position is indefensible. The figures are all against him. We are simply asking for common justice.

7.3 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: A moment ago hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were complaining of the hard hearts shown by the Government and were using as evidence the fact that the new Clause then just proposed had not been accepted. I am sensitive to that argument. I notice that we have had only four new Clauses, and one of them has been accepted, so the success of the Opposition has been 25 per cent. up to date. I think I am entitled also to call attention to the fact that we have been driven to a Division on each of the other three, notwithstanding the devastating and shattering arguments that have been adduced from this Box. I have made these preliminary remarks because, unfortunately, I must

ask the House not to accept this Clause. I say that with regret because something of an apparent case can be made for doing something of the kind that this new Clause seeks to do. I hope I am revealing no secret when I say that for a very considerable time recently we have been wrestling with the problem as to whether anything could be done along these lines, and we have regretfully come to the conclusion that it cannot.
In order that I may carry the House to agreement with me in this point of view, may I remind them what the existing position is? I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, on the principle oflucus a non lucendo, threw as much light as I should have liked to see. There is a difference between repairs and what he is asking for here, which is the installation of improved fixtures or fittings. For repairs a 25 per cent. increase is permitted and, if they are not done, there is machinery by which the tenant can see that the increase is not paid. This is not repairing. We are dealing with the installation of fixtures and fittings. What caused me a great deal of interest in the problem was that it is obvious that there comes a point at which it is very difficult to draw the line as to what is an improvement and what is a repair. If, for example, you have a bath with a hole in the bottom and you put a patch on it, that is obviously a repair. If you take it out and replace it by a more up-to-date bath, is it a replacement or a repair? It only needs to be stated to see how difficult it is to draw the line between what is purely repair and what is replacement. Section 7 of the Act of 1933 provides that:
For the purposes of the 1920 Act expenditure on the provision of additional or improved fixtures or fittings in a dwelling-house, not being expenditure on decoration or repairs, shall be deemed to be expenditure on the improvement of the dwelling-house.
That Section clearly contemplates that some exependiture on improved fittings or fixtures will, notwithstanding that they are expenditure of that kind, be repairs, and therefore not be entitled to rank for the 8 per cent. increase, and therefore, it is only in respect of improvements of fixtures or fittings which are not repairs that the landlord is entitled to demand an extra rent of 8 per cent.

Mr. Bellenger: Is that not for structural improvements only?

The Solicitor-General: No. Under the 1920 Act it was only for structural improvements, but Parliament expressly added the words that I have just read from the 1933 Act for a specific purpose, namely, to encourage landlords to go in for expenditure which will provide added benefits to the house—a valuable inducement to landlords to recondition houses and to provide more up-to-date appliances. In so far as expenditure of that kind is a repair, it does not entitle the landlord to increase the rent by 8 per cent. It is only in so far as it is a genuine addition or an additional or improved fixture or fitting to the dwelling-house.

Mr. Bevan: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman misses the point. A sanitary inspector would obviously have no power to issue an order asking for something that would amount to a structural alteration in the house unless it were necessary to put the house into a reasonable state of repair. The order of the sanitary inspector is referred to in the Clause. Surely the landlord ought not to have additional money merely for conforming with the law.

The Solicitor-General: I am only trying to make clear what the Act of 1933 exactly does. It might have been thought, from some observations of the right hon. Gentleman, that it permitted the landlord to charge 8 per cent. in respect of any improvements or additions that he made to the house, whether they were by way of repair or not. That is not so. It is only in so far as they are additions or improvements which are not repairs. The new Clause proposes that, where the new fixtures or fittings are replacements of the old ones or have been ordered by the local authority, there shall be no permitted increase of rent. It, therefore, does not permit an increase of rent even in those cases in which the replacement has been an improvement. To that extent it discourages the good landlord from putting in a more up-to-date article than was already in the house. It goes on to provide that if it is provided in pursuance of an order of the sanitary authority, again it shall not rank for the increase. That seems to be going a good deal too far.
Supposing the sanitary authority directs that new larders are to be added, or that a water closet is to be added instead of an earth closet which exists; the consequence of that is that the tenant has a better house. He has a house to which the old rent ceases to have the same relevance as it used to have. So we feel in the circumstances that this very limited return that the landlord is entitled to have, amounting to 8 per cent., which works out at£2 a year, or 9d. a week, on a£25 house, is definitely an encouragement to landlords to recondition their houses and bring them up to date, and to provide better appliances than they might otherwise be expected to provide.

Mr. Cassells: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the tenant is being penalised financially as the result of the shocking carelessness on the part of the landlord in past years in not having dealt with repairs by degrees? A new tenant might come into a house that is in a shocking condition. Repairs have to be executed and he will be penalised to the extent of 8 per cent.

The Solicitor-General: That is a point that occurred to me yesterday. Supposing you could theoretically divide up the expenditure into the part that is appropriate to disrepair and the part appropriate to the improvement. We attempted to do that, and we failed. There is no practical method of making a provision that will divide up the expenditure and allot part of it to repairs and part to improvements. Let me take an example which occurs to me in consequence of the point which the hon. Gentleman has just put. Take the case of a kitchen range, which may at the moment be perfectly serviceable in the sense that it will cook meals and so on, but which is not in keeping with the ranges in similar houses in the same district. In these circumstances the landlord agrees to provide a new range, and he charges his 8 per cent. It is true in a sense that, of that capital expenditure, some will in theory represent the disrepair which has accumulated over a period of years, and which ultimately, although it has not yet happened, will drive the range out of existence. At the moment it is a serviceable range, though not very good. What one would like to do, if it were possible, would be to devise some formula whereby we could


divide that up and say that the part relevant in any particular instance to disrepair will be separated out, and only the balance will be countable as an improvement. But that is not what this Clause attempts to do.

Mr. Bevan: Which part of the Clause are you dealing with?

The Solicitor-General: I am dealing with the last part of the Clause, which refers to
replacements of fixtures or fittings due to the disrepair of the fixtures or fittings replaced.
There is another matter to which I think it is worth while to call attention. Underlying this proposed new Clause is the suggestion that landlords have been increasing rents under Section 7 when they have only been replacing worn-out fixtures by new ones of substantially the same kind. We know of no evidence to support that suggestion. In so far as the replacement is not really an improvement, but a repair as defined by Section 2 (5) of the Act of 1920:
for the purpose of keeping premises in good and tenantable repair,
no increase is authorised. It is only when it passes into the different category which I have been trying—it is not very easy—to define as it appears in the Act of 1933, that is to say, when it is something which is not a repair, but in a real sense a replacement, that the 8 per cent. comes into force. We feel that it would be a serious discouragement to landlords and an obstacle in the way of rehabilitation of premises if it did not, and we feel that, broadly speaking, such an added burden would not be an unreasonable one, but one which most tenants would be very glad to undertake in order to get the advantage of more up-to-date fittings.

Mr. Johnston: Do we understand the Solicitor-General to say that the Government have no evidence that landlords were taking the 25 per cent. year after year and not making the necessary repairs?

The Solicitor-General: Not that there was no evidence that the landlords were taking the 25 per cent. for repairs. Of course they are——

Mr. Johnston: And not doing them?

The Solicitor-General: —and doing them I am not addressing my argument

to the case of mere repairs, because there the tenant can get redress. If the repairs are not done, he can get a certificate and withhold the increase of rent until they are done. But the Ridley Committee, apparently, did not have anything like enough evidence on this point to justify them in making a recommendation of the kind that the Clause suggests.

7.21 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I could not help thinking that the Solicitor-General was living in a kind of "Never Never Land"—some dream place that he has imagined. Or is it that Nottingham, which is the home of the lace industry, is different from the parts of the country with which I am familiar? As far as I can make out, he imagines that landlords are going round to the class of property where the rent increase is to be limited in future, begging the tenants to accept improvements, reconstructions and decorations which the landlords will only be too pleased to do in order to make charming houses in the miles of dull dreary streets with which we are familiar. I may have been unfortunate in my experience. I know that there are exceptions. There are big estates where the landlord takes a great pride in his property, and in such cases, as a general rule, the landlords will not press for 5 per cent. on their rent in order to pay for the extra cost. But in the case of the kind of property with which I am familiar, it nearly always happens that repairs are not done until they are forced on the landlord, either by the tenants going to the town hall or by the fact that the house has become unfit for habitation. When the house gets into such a condition that the local authority forces the landlord, under pressure from the tenant, to bring the sanitary arrangements up to date and make them usable, the landlord should not be entitled to an increased rent to cover the cost, and that, I understand, is the purpose of this proposed new Clause.
It is not a revolutionary one, but a very reasonable one. The Solicitor-General admitted that it was reasonable, but he had to say that he was not skilful enough, or his draftsmen were not skilful enough, to distinguish cases of this kind. Really, I do not think that that is worthy of the Solicitor-General. I noticed that the Minister of Health kept quiet, smiling benevolently. He has some experience of


working-class districts. For many years he was associated with Finsbury, and he knows the atrocious class of property in that neighbourhood. I am sure that, if he applied his ingenious brain to this matter, with the assistance of his skilled draftsmen and experts at the Ministry of Health, he could find words, which I assume my right hon. Friend would not be unwilling to accept, to do what I believe the House of Commons desires, and what certainly tens of thousands of working people think is reasonable and practical. It seems fundamentally wrong that, when a landlord is forced to put his house in decent repair and make it habitable, the tenant should be mulcted in increased rent.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I could not understand why the Solicitor-General was put up to answer on what, after all, is not a point of law, but a matter of policy. It is not customary for Law Officers of the Crown to discuss policy of this kind. The Minister of Health need not look surprised. He has two expressions at all events, one of benevolence and one of surprise. I would like to see an expression of agreement. There are no legal complications involved, though the Solicitor-General tried to make a number of them. The first point that was made by my right hon. Friend was that the landlords should regard themselves as being particularly fortunate because they are still enjoying the 25 per cent. for repairs, even though the cost of repairs has fallen by more than 75 per cent. since the 25 per cent. was put on. Therefore, there is no justification for any landlord who has allowed his property to get into such a condition of disrepair that a sanitary inspector's order is necessary. The first part of the proposed new Clause would not come into operation except on the order of a sanitary inspector. What difficulty is there about that class of case?
It may be argued that Section 7 of the Act of 1923 was perfectly reasonable in order to encourage good landlords to improve their houses, but the Clause deals with the bad landlord, who not only has not improved his house, but has allowed it to become so bad that a sanitary inspector's certificate is issued

in respect of it, and it says that the 8 per cent. shall not be charged in respect of any new or improved fixtures that are put in pursuance of an order of a sanitary inspector. The sanitary inspector must issue his certificate within the framework of the existing law; in other words, he can ask no more of the landlord than he can depend in the courts as being necessary to put the house in conformity with the law. He has not a roving commission; he cannot put what he likes into his certificate; he is limited by the law to instructing the landlord to carry out repairs which will make the house, not a superior house, but a house conforming with the minimum standard of health requirements laid down in the Act. Therefore we say that, with respect to repairs or additions of that kind, the landlord ought not to be allowed to charge 8 per cent. I would ask the Solicitor-General whether there is anything complicated about that? We are entitled to know. We are here to defend the interests of hundreds of thousands of poor people, because this deals with the poorest class of property, and I would ask the Solicitor-General not to try to deflect the attention of the House by a few legal tricks.
The second part of the Clause presumably raises some technical difficulty. It says that the 8 per cent. shall not be charged for replacement of fixtures or fittings due to the disrepair of fixtures or fittings. The point about that is that the landlord in the first place must have neglected to keep those fittings in repair before he can be refused the benefits of Section 7 of the Act of 1933. Take the case that the Solicitor-General suggested as an example—the case where a fireplace is replaced by a modern range. If the landlord can show that the fireplace was in a perfectly good condition, and that he is going to put in a range in its place, he will, even if this Clause is passed, still be entitled to the benefit of the 8 per cent. He is denied the benefit of the 8 per cent. only if it can be shown that the range had been allowed to fall into a condition of disrepair. Again, it is a penalty imposed upon a bad landlord. It is not a deterrent to a landlord improving his property.
The two parts of the Clause are intended to penalise bad landlords who, having been able to enjoy 25 per cent. of


the standard rent for all this period, have nevertheless allowed their property to fall into disrepair. There are no complications about administration of this sort. The Minister of Health, who is supposed to be engaged in an anti-slum campaign, ought to accept it with enthusiasm. I have suspected for some time that, as in his attitude in this House, there was more wind than reality about his campaign. We have attempted in Committee, as on the Report stage, to get improvements in the Bill for tenants and impose disabilities on bad landlords. The Minister has been the champion of bad landlords throughout and, in rejecting this Clause, he deprives the House of an opportunity of forcing bad landlords to suffer under disabilities that they ought to suffer under until they mend their ways.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I do not propose to say much at this stage. I hope that later I shall have an opportunity of saying a word on the Clause which is to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), which will deny to bad landlords not only the 8 per cent. but a bit more. I hope the Minister will accept that. If he indicates that he will do so, it will be unnecessary for me to say any more. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General said that the arguments uttered from the Box by Ministers on previous Clauses have been shattering and devastating, so that the Opposition had been rendered completely speechless. I wonder by which of these two adjectives he describes his answer on this Clause. I do not feel either shattered or devastated. I feel that the Solicitor-General tried to get as involved as possible, in making out that every fitting had a dual personality, that it was part repair and part additional fitting, and that it was impossible to separate one from the other. Jekyll and Hyde could not be less inseparable. The landlords must get their 8 per cent. I should not have thought such a separation would have been impossible for a landlord who sees his right to take 25 per cent. when he has done repairs worth 5 per cent. A landlord who can do this wonderful operation, surely would not have difficulty in seeing how much of his 8 per cent. he was entitled to. The Solicitor-General thinks the landlord should be coddled all the time.
He referred to the question of appeals. In my constituency that does not function; but, even there, the Solicitor-General is not prepared to go to the length of allowing that type of appeal on the 8 per cent. Presumably the landlord is to have the last word. He is to be the sole judge as to when he can put another 8 per cent. on the rent. If he puts a new knob on the front door he can come forward and say that that is a new fitting, and that the rent is to go up 8 per cent. As far as I can understand, he is the valuer of the capital expenditure on the particular fitting. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not made a case. I am not going to spend more time on arguing this, because the later Clause will cover the 8 per cent.; but I think a case has been made out for the Solicitor-General agreeing, perhaps not to accept this particular Clause, but to do something to reduce the unchecked power of the landlord, whenever he does a little structural alteration, to come forward and use it as a reason for charging additional rent.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: The Solicitor-General seemed to suggest that he was seriously perturbed as to the inseparability of two elements, namely, repairs and improvements. I quite admit that the last thing we should do is to discourage landlords from effecting improvements. On the other hand, if a person charges a tenant 25 per cent. for the fulfilment of a duty, and does not discharge the duty, there should be some action. The person receiving the money should be dealt with in no uncertain manner. But that does not meet the point made by the Solicitor-General. If the difficulty lies in the confusion between what is an improvement and what is a repair, here, surely, is a formula. An improvement to any house is something that will increase its rateable value. If there is any difficulty in the matter for the Solicitor-General, I will solve it for him now. A repair is something which is fulfilling a contract made when the tenant entered the house; something which is maintaining the house but not increasing its rateable value. We have a clear definition now. The Solicitor-General spoke about a bath being put into a house. That does not increase the rateable value. That is a repair. Putting in a new grate for an old one is a repair. If any grate gets into such a condition that it is necessary for the tenant to use


the force of the sanitary authority, that is an alteration that should have been made before. I am prepared to take this into court and put it before any judge as a clear definition between a repair and an improvement. Now that I have cleared this up for the Solicitor-General—this is more in my line than his, as it is my work to do these little jobs—there need be no difficulty about it.
I admit that the Clause rather mixes improvements and repairs: it should have been drafted in such a way as to avoid using the word "improvement"; but there is need for something to be done. On the Solicitor-General's statement this has been worrying him, and he has been trying to face it. In my division I have the same difficulty. Time and again, when I was on the corporation, people would come to me and show me the most deplorable conditions: No repairs had been carried out; and I would have to take these people's cases into my hands, because if I had told them to take action under the provisions of the Act they would have been cleared out of the houses. I had, as a member of the corporation, actually to go down and defend these people from the ordeal that would have resulted from their taking action under the Act itself. This Clause, or something like it, must be put into the Bill. I am not making any party capital out of this. As a pure matter of machinery, it is highly essential. I hope something will be done, because it is affecting the lives of the poorest of the poor in these horrible wens in the centre of the crowded districts of the Black Country, where the housing conditions are abhorrent.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: I do not see any legal difficulty in this problem. With great respect to those who have been attacking my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I do not think that he really meant by his speech to indicate that this is what he and I would call a legal difficulty, as distinct from a somewhat different difficulty arising from a question of fact. It does not lead me to think that the object at which this Clause is aimed is other than a good object. But, inasmuch as my hon. and learned Friend said that he had a good deal of sympathy with the difficulty that we know arises in connection with this 25 per cent., why

should we not at least make a beginning? What justification can there really be to allow repairs which have been executed under an order of the sanitary authority to be dealt with under the Sub-section referred to in the Clause?
With the best will in the world, and impressed as I always am by the legal reasons which my hon. and learned Friend gives, I can see no difficulty in this matter. I think those who drafted the Clause have, however, got themselves into a difficulty by using in the second line the words "new or improved fixtures." I think the words "or improved" have probably caused a good deal of discussion, and have indicated a difficulty where perhaps none really exists. If the words "or improved" were left out, then—speaking for myself, and having in years gone by had some experience of the difficulties that arise in particular cases, and knowing how extraordinarily difficult it is very often to resolve problems that arise under these Acts —I see nothing in regard to this problem which is so difficult that it cannot be resolved as a question of fact.
With regard to the end of the Clause, I can see some problems which would instantly arise, and which might do that which I have consistently- opposed in this House in connection with all amendments of legislation dealing with this problem, namely, encourage a further crop of litigation between people who ought not to be involved in litigation, for the simple reason that they cannot afford it. Any legislation or any Amendment that may be passed ought to bear that circumstance in mind. My object in intervening is to invite the Minister to give further consideration to the proposed new Clause and the problem involved, and to ask him whether he cannot consider the first part of it, subject to the criticism which I have ventured to indicate.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Cassells: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. CroomJohnson). The speech of the Solicitor-General was highly uninformative. He indicated that, so far as his opinion was concerned, there was definite ambiguity in the law at the present time as regards the definition of improved fixtures or fittings. The last speaker referre I to the fact that the Clause contains the words


"new or improved fixtures or fittings," but one finds that that phrase is in the Act of 1923, Section 7 (1), to which the Solicitor-General referred. Therefore, the party on this side should not be saddled with that responsibility.
To my mind, there is no legal complication as regards this question. The issue is perfectly concise in this respect, that with the law as it presently stands the landlord is entitled in respect of repairs to levy an additional charge upon the individual tenant of 25 per cent. on the rent chargeable at 3rd August, 1914. The Solicitor-General spoke glibly and flippantly about the legal rights which the individual tenants possess under Act of Parliament in so far as that 25 per cent. charge is Concerned. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) when he pointed out, quite properly, that in his particular community the legal procedure, in so far as the tenant is capable of doing it, is highly ineffective.
In my own experience it is very often a most difficult thing to obtain a sanitary inspector's certificate. You pay your shilling to the local authority and the sanitary inspector goes under the Act of Parliament for the purpose of certifying whether or not the subjects are reasonably fit for human habitation, but it is only in the most extreme and the very worst cases that one fortunately manages to obtain the necessary certificate. I remember one case where we could not get the sanitary inspector's certificate. I personally, visited the subjects, and I could not understand why the certificate was not given, but at the end of the day we found out that the reason was that the sanitary inspector himself was the proprietor of the subjects.
With regard to the question of the 8 per cent., I agree with the point which the Solicitor-General, probably with some justification, made, that there is a definite difference in the wording of Section 71 of the Act of 1933 as compared with the wording of the Act of 1920. But from the practical point of view, in actual practice, as the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) pointed out, there is no difference. The 8 per cent. purely applies, with the legal position in Scotland, to structural alteration or improvement. I would ask the Solicitor-General this question: Will he apply his mind

to the wording of Section 7 of the Act of 1933:
For the purposes of paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of Section two of the Act of 192o, expenditure after the passing of this Act on the provision of additional or improved fixtures or fittings in a dwelling-house (not being expenditure on decoration or repairs).
What is the opposite of expenditure on decoration or repairs? It is only one thing, namely, expenditure on structural alteration or improvement. That is the point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause, that with the law as it now stands there is no compulsitor to effect timeously structural alterations or improvements. I can give an illustration within my own knowledge coming from the district where the right hon. Gentleman lives—Kirkintilloch. There, a landlord allowed over a period of years a dwelling-house to lapse into a state of dilapidation. A new tenant comes in and the landlord immediately sets about certain work there, on which he incurs a capital expenditure of£80. After the work has been done he goes to the new tenant and says: "You are compelled under Act of Parliament to pay me annually 8 per cent. on this capital expenditure." Although we went to court and pointed out how vexatious the whole problem was, and how improper from the moral standpoint it was that the landlord should do this, the answer we received from the judge was that he had no discretionary power, and that he could not go into the past and deal with the particular conduct of this man
Is there any cogent reason why a tenant, who has the right to obtain a sanitary inspector's certificate with regard to the 25 per cent., should ultimately be mulcted with the 8 per cent.? Why should the tenant not have the same right to call in the local authority and say that these particular charges are being levied, that they are being levied illegally, that the repairs have not been executed and that the structural alterations and improvements have not been executed? The Solicitor-General would be acting in justice to himself and his party if he was prepared to respond to this very proper Clause that has been moved.

7.55 P.m.

Mr. Viant: The argument that has been adduced since the Solicitor-General spoke


ought to have convinced him of the justification of our appeal. I paid close attention to his speech, and it occurred to me that he was evidently out of touch with the practice of this House. In practice, the Act has given the landlords, in general, a 25 per cent. increase in rent, because in 99 cases out of 100, in my constituency at least, the repairs are not carried out, and the tenants have the utmost difficulty—many of them are quite unaware of their right—in obtaining a certificate for reasonable repairs. Therefore, in practice the Act has given the landlord a 25 per cent, increase in rent.
I noted the illustration which was given by the Solicitor-General concerning a larder. He said that improvements might be made by way of erecting a larder. In conformity with the Act, that would be a structural alteration. The putting in of a door could reasonably be claimed as a structural alteration, but the ordinary replacement of a fireplace, even though it might be superior to the original one, should not be claimed as an improvement justifying another 8 per cent, on the rent. I should like to give an illustration in keeping with the illustration given by the Solicitor-General. I know something of what I am speaking, because I was engaged in the building industry before corning to this House. A larder was flooded with water, there was a defective roof, letting in the water which had rotted the shelves. A builder was called in and the roof had to be repaired. With regard to the shelves, the owner of the property, in order to make his position secure, suggested to the builder that where formerly there were only four shelves he should put in six. Those six shelves were three feet in length, 11 inches wide by one inch thick. The price was 1s. and the necessary labour amounted to 3s.
The owner of the property, having instructed the builder to do that, claimed from the tenant an additional 8 per cent. on the rent. [Interruption.] I am giving an illustration of the way in which this 8 per cent. increase is being imposed all over the country. The tenants are ignorant of the Act. The Government are giving the landlords a 25 per cent. increase of rent and also facilities, of which advantage is being taken to charge an additional 8 per cent. for small improvements. Surely the Solicitor-General must agree that there is some justification for

our appeal that he should make this provision clearer and more watertight, in order that ordinary tenants shall no longer be exploited as they are being exploited at present.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The Solicitor-General told us that he spent a great part of yesterday wrestling with the law on this matter. I suppose we may take that as a contrast to the picture of a good man wrestling with adversity. It is the first time I have ever seen the companion picture of the hon. and learned Gentleman wrestling with the law, and I was rather reminded of the story of the patriarch who wrestled with an angel and who, having been touched on the thigh by the angel, halted for the rest of his life. It seemed to me that the result of the hon. and learned Gentleman's wrestling with the law was that his argument halted very considerably during this Debate.
I wish to emphasise the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). I cannot see what difficulty there is in the way of accepting the spirit of the first part of the new Clause. It is laid down in one of the Housing and Town Planning Acts that it is an implied part of the contract between the landlord and the tenant of a working-class house, that the house is deemed to have been in a state of good and tenantable repair when taken over and that it is the duty of the landlord to maintain it in that state. Therefore, if the landlord is keeping the contract which the law says is implied in the relationship of landlord and tenant, he can never be in a position in which the first part of the proposed new Clause could become operative against him. This does not deal with any requirement of the sanitary authority higher than the demands that can be made under the Section to which I have just alluded. I cannot see why it should be considered either difficult or improper to insist that when the landlord has to carry out these repairs at the behest of the local sanitary authority, he should be unable to charge any additional rent in respect of them. If the sanitary authority is unreasonable in its demands, he has his remedy. He can take them to court and get the Order set aside.
Nor can I see great difficulty in the way of accepting the last part of the Clause.


Where these are replacements of fixtures or fittings rendered necessary by the fact that the landlord has allowed them to get into a condition of disrepair, I cannot see why he should be entitled to additional rent from the tenant for those replacements. My hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) has already given an instance of the way in which landlords misconstrue the law in this respect. No doubt they do it in good faith. They become so used to taking 3 per cent. on the biggest figure they can think of, that even when the amount of the increased rent is bigger than the amount of repairs, they still take the 8 per cent. I have known of similar cases, and I know of one case in which the tenant was unaware that he had been overcharged until he discovered it accidentally. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should indulge a little longer in that wrestling with the law to which he referred. We have tried to simplify the matter for him and we hope that in the less complicated state in which the matter is now presented to him he may find it possible to accept, if not all the points which are raised in this new Clause, at any rate the spirit of the proposal which it makes.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: If the Solicitor-General cannot accept the new Clause in this form, I hope he will give it consideration with a view to having something done on these lines in another place. I wish to meet the point which has been raised by him and other hon. Members regarding the words "improved fixtures." The fault, if there is any in these words, does not lie with the framers of this new Clause because these words have been copied from previous Acts. Section 2 of the Act of 1920 contains the words
Where the landlord has since the fourth August‥‥ incurred expenditure on the improvement or structural alteration of the dwelling house.
Again, in Section 7 of the Act of 1933 we find the words:
the provision of additional or improved fixtures or fittings in a dwelling-house.'
These words, therefore, have been employed in the proposed new Clause with the idea of proceeding along the lines laid down in previous Acts. By this time I think the Solicitor-General must feel that the crushing and devastating arguments have not come from his side in this

Debate. Argument has been piled on argument to show him the strong case which exists for the acceptance of this Clause, or a Clause on similar lines. He said earlier that there was no evidence that ordinary replacements were charged, at any rate that they were charged as repairs. In the Second Reading Debate I gave the House some evidence of the extent to which this is done. I gave the names of the particular financial groups concerned, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) has given yet another instance.
I repeat what I said on that occasion. There are operating in London two or three large financial groups. There is one estate company which has charge of large blocks of working-class property, and when ordinary replacements have to be made they issue to their tenants long lists indicating special charges to be made by them. For instance, if a bath has to be replaced in a house, the tenant is charged an additional is. a week rent, and that goes on as long as the tenancy lasts. If a sink has to be replaced because it is out of repair, they charge the tenant an additional 6d. a week, because they tell him that they have replaced the old sink by a deep sink. Where they replace an ordinary zinc copper, they charge another 6d. a week. My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) put his finger on the spot and incidentally suggested the lines on which the Government might meet this proposal, when he said that the only legitimate claim for increased rent in respect of improvements was where the improvements led to an increase in the assessable value of the property. To put in a deep sink, or a few extra shelves, are not improvements which, of themselves, create an increased assessment. They are just the ordinary replacements.
I gave a case which arose in the part of my own constituency which borders on that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith). A bay window had to be replaced by order of the district surveyor. It was replaced by a new bay window of a different shape, and because the new window was of a different shape an additional 6d. a week was charged on the ground that it was an improvement. This is the kind of thing to which I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give consideration. They


may seem trivial to us, but 6d. or a shilling a week on a working-class household is an additional burden. What is more it is an outrage and it is robbery to charge increased rents for replacements which are complying only with the ordinary elementary decencies of housing. That is the problem which we ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider. The use of the word "improvement" can be explained in two ways—first, because it is used in the earlier Acts and, secondly, because the provision of such a necessity in the household economy as a modern sink in place of an old one is, undoubtedly, an improvement. But it is also a necessity, and it is to meet that case that we put forward this new Clause.
If the hon. and learned Member finds the present wording of the Clause a stumbling-block in the way of its acceptance I am sure that those who support it will not be at variance with him, should he assure the House that the Government are willing to look into the matter and to find words of their own to meet the position which has been described and prevent the continuance of practices which amount almost to blackmail imposed on poor tenants by people who take advantage of the situation. I suppose that my own borough council is no exception in this respect, but every time the council meets we find on the agenda indications that certain people are being called on to carry out repairs to property. We find then in another column that these people have paid up 13s. or whatever the amount may be in order to escape having to go into court. By that means they have the summons dismissed, but it shows how far people of this kind will go. They go to the fullest lengths, knowing that while two or three tenants may seek advice from the borough council and get an apportionment, thousands of others will not do so and thus they get away with it in the manner I have indicated. In that way the whole intention and purpose of the Acts are being defeated.

8.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I hope I indicated in my opening remarks that I felt that there was a good deal to be said in support of this Clause which has provoked such a lively discussion. I merely wish

to say this in advance of any further remarks which I have to make. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) quoted certain words of mine and treated them as though I had been saying that the draftsmen had been unable to do what they were wanted to do. Let me remove the draftsmen out of it altogether. The draftsmen are assiduous and painstaking Civil servants, but like other Civil servants, it is their duty to do what they are told, and we have to accept the responsibility. If anything that I said seemed to place the responsibility where it does not rest, I hope that the House will understand that I did not mean any such thing. I meant to say that I had devoted as much intelligence as I have to seeing whether in some way this could be met, and had come to the conclusion that, concurrently with the requirements of policy, it was not practicable.
I am afraid that, as a result of the Debate, that view has not been shaken Let me tell the House some of the reasons why it has not been shaken. First of all, I will deal with the instances given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and by the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant). They both gave instance where, following upon trifling alterations to the property, increases of rent were made. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell instanced the putting in of a deep sink where there had been a shallow one, in respect of which the landlord made a demand for a further 6d. a week in rent. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Willesden spoke of the case of putting in a few shelves of the value of 3s. and adding 8 per cent. to the rent. Nothing that this Clause does will affect that position. Both these matters are breaches of the existing law. I cannot conceive that a deep sink would cost£I7 or£8. A capital expenditure of £17 or£8 would have to be shown to be expenditure upon improvements before an additional rent of 6d. could be demanded. Of the two instances that have been given the stronger was that given by the hon. Member for West Willesden. If a landlord puts 8 per cent. on the rent after spending only 3s. on shelves, he is breaking the law and committing a criminal offence. There is a penalty provided in Section 3 of the Act of 1920, and he can be taken to the court and fined.
These are not instances of the kind that really are relevant or helpful to the discussion we are undertaking at the present time. Ours is, I am afraid, a much more difficult problem, and the extent of the difficulty was perhaps made clear by the instance given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who has, unfortunately, had to leave the House, but who had the courtesy to tell me so. He said that the matter was so simple, because if you put in a bath when the old bath was worn out or a grate when the old grate was worn out, that was a repair. The answer to that is, if it is a repair, it does not attract the 8 per cent. That is clearly provided for in the Section of the Act of 1920 which everybody seems to overlook, as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. CroomJohnson), who has laid his egg and departed. For the purposes of the relevant Section in the Act of 1920 the expression "repairs" means any repairs required for the purpose of keeping the premises in good and tenantable repair. Therefore, a great deal of this discussion has been upon the wrong basis. If you put in a bath because the old bath is no longer such that the house is in tenantable repair, you are only doing a repair, and it does not attract the 8 per cent. at all. It is only in cases in which it is an improvement and is not a repair that the question arises at all.
A point was made—and it seemed to be a very formidable one—as to why, in any case, if a fixture is provided in pursuance of an order of the sanitary authority, that should not conclude the matter. I confess that I examined that question also, but I want to give the House one or two reasons why it would not perhaps work out quite as well as it would appear. Suppose, for example, that in an area it was known that the sanitary authority was about to make a new direction that earth closets were to be substituted by water closets. The ingenious and profit-making landlord would substitute for his own closet a water closet before the sanitary order was made, and it would rank for the 8 per cent., but the landlord on whom the sanitary authority made on order would not receive the 8 per cent., so that of two houses standing side by side, one would bear the burden of the capital cost

of the water closet and the other would not bear that burden. That is an example of the way it would work. I will take another example. Suppose you have two local authorities in one of which an order is made by the sanitary authority for a particular requirement and in the other no such order is made. Comparable houses, assuming equivalent rentals in both cases, would be bearing different rentals as a result of the action of the sanitary authority. In the one case, if the landlord likes to be up-to-date and makes the improvement, he gets the 8 per cent., and if he does not, the old rent prevails. If the sanitary authority makes the order no improvement can be claimed.
Those are the difficulties that present themselves in the exceedingly easy matter of accepting what the Clause says, but there is a further difficulty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell, and, I think, some other hon. Members said, "You cannot blame us for the words, because we took the words from the 1933 Act." That is perfectly true, but in the 1933 Act those words were utilised in order to attract the extra 8 per cent. They are used in this Clause in connection with words that repel the 8 per cent. There is all the difference in the world between using those words in association with the negative in the Clause, and using them in association with the Clause in cases where you enable the landlord to do something. As the Clause stands—and that is what the House has to judge by—if the sanitary authority directs that a fixture which is an improvement shall be installed, the landlord shall not be entitled to charge anything in respect of the cost of that improvement. In so far as it is a repair, it is covered by the existing law, but whether it is a repair or not, if it is ordered by the sanitary authority, it will not attract the extra 8 per cent. Therefore, I fail to see on what footing the sanitary authority is to be the arbiter in respect of the definition of what is a repair and what is an improvement.

Mr. Bevan: The sanitary inspector cannot ask for any alterations to be carried out except in pursuance of statutory obligations imposed upon him. He cannot go beyond what is imposed by the town council.

The Solicitor-General: It is not so simple as that because it has been decided


in the courts, in the case of Free v. Callendars Trustees, that where a house has no sanitary conveniences except an earth closet and the landlord builds a water closet it is a structural alteration, not a repair and, therefore, attracts the 8 per cent. It is clear, therefore, that a sanitary authority can order some things which do not come within the category of repairs.

Mr. Bevan: A sanitary inspector cannot order a water closet unless it has been made a general order by the council.

The Solicitor-General: I agree, but that does not alter my point. The sanitary authority does not decide the question as to whether it is a repair or improvement, and for these reasons, although I appreciate the arguments which have been put forward, we cannot accept the new

Clause. I should like to add one thing. I will be perfectly frank. I do not intend to give any undertaking at all, but in the light of the discussion that has taken place we will look into the matter again and see whether there is any reasonable way in which effect can be given to some of the desires expressed by hon. Members on all sides of the House. I do not intend, and I hope the House will not misunderstand, to give an undertaking that the Amendment will be made in another place. I have no reason to think that the discussion has removed our difficulties, but we will look into it again and if it should prove a more practicable problem we will see what can be done in another place.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 185.

Division No. 177.
AYES.
8.28 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pearson, A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hardie, Agnes
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barr, J.
Hayday, A.
Ridley, G.


Bellenger F. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bevan, A.
Hicks, E. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bromfield, W.
Holdsworth, H.
Salter, Or. A. (Bermondsey)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jagger, J.
Sexton. T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cassells, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Summerskill, Edith


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Thorne, W.


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Logan, D. G.
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Walkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Foot, D. M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Mander, G. le M.
White, H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gaorge, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Milner, Major J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gledhill, G.
Pilkington, R.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds. W.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Prooter, Major H. A.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Assheton, R.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bernays, R. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Blair, Sir R.
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Broad bridge, Sir G. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bull, B. B.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hepworth, J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Butcher, H. W.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Butler, R. A.
Holmes, J. S.
Rowlands, G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cary, R. A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Salmon, Sir I.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Salt, E. W.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hutchinson, G. C.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Sandys, E. D.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Latham, Sir P.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Liddall, W. S.
Spears, Brigadier-General E L.


Cross, R. H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lloyd, G. W.
Strickland, Captain W. P.


Culverwell, C. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tate, Mavis C.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


De la Bère, R.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, J. H.
Titchfield. Marquess of


Denville, Alfred
Magnay, T.
Touche, G. C.


Doland, G. F.
Maitland, A.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duggan, H. J.
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Eckersley, P. T.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wells, S. R.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Emery. J F
Munro, P.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Errington, E.
Nall, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Erskine-Hill, A. G
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wise, A. R.


Everard, W. L.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Findlay, Sir E.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fleming, E. L.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wragg, H.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Patrick, C. M.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Furness, S. N.
Peat, C. U.



Fyfe, D. P. M.
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Captain Dugdale and Major Herbert.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on possession of furnished sub-letting.)

Where a dwelling-house let at a rent which includes payments in respect of the use of furniture is a sub-let part of a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply, those Acts shall not cease to apply to the sub-let part by reason of its being so sub-let.—[Mr. Ammon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I beg to move,"That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under Section 12 of the 1920 Act, the furnished sub-letting of part of a controlled house places the part so sub-let outside the Act. The purpose of this Clause is to bring such a sub-letting back within the Act, that is to say, to create the position which obtained prior to the 1020 Act. The Clause goes a little further than that, since it endeavours to prevent the proverbial coach and four being driven through an Act of Parliament. Many hon. Members will know that it is not an uncommon thing for people, under


the pretence of letting a furnished room, to put just a few sticks into a room, and by that means to escape the control and so to charge an increased rent over and above that which they would legitimately be entitled to charge if the rooms were let empty to a tenant. Again and again I have had brought to my attention cases where, in controlled houses, rooms which did not even contain a bed have been let as furnished rooms, and the people who have let them have been able to charge a very much higher rent than they would otherwise have been able to charge. It is to prevent that, and to bring these sublet parts back under the Act, that I have moved this Clause.

8.38 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I am advised that this new Clause would, in fact, reverse the decision of the House of Lords in 1932 which confirmed a Court of Appeal decision of 1931 in the case of Fordree v. Barrel, in which is was decided that where a controlled tenant sub-lets part of his house furnished, he loses that protection in respect of the part so sub-let, and the landlord is entitled to regain possession.

Mr. Ammon: Does that mean that the superior landlord regains possession?

Sir K. Wood: Yes. In this connection, I would like to refer to the report of the Marley Committee, which dealt with this case, and stated in paragraph 84:
We think, however, that the position as regards furnished rooms in controlled houses may be considerably eased by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Fordree v. Barrell, which has now made it clear that where a statutory tenant sub-lets rooms furnished he creates against himself new dwelling houses outside the scope of the Acts, and the landlord is entitled to an order for possession of the rooms so sub-let. We think it probable that the effect of this decision will be to reduce considerably the scope of the problem by discouraging statutory tenants from this form of sub-letting.
I am advised that the new Clause which the hon. Member has moved would reverse that decision, which I think is generally acceptable to the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to discuss this with me or my legal advisers, because I do not think that he quite apprehends what the effect of this Clause may be. That being the position, I do not think it would be in the interests of anybody that this proposition should go further.

Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, since this appeal in the case of Fordree v. Barrell, there has been any protection for the tenant in a controlled sub-let house against an extortionate rent being charged to him, not by the landlord, but by the tenant who has sublet a portion of the house with alleged furniture in the rooms? Is there any protection?

Sir K. Wood: The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that, in connection with the Rent Restriction Acts generally, the question of letting with furniture was left out of the Acts on the ground that, in a very large number of cases, it was an excuse for charging very high rents. Therefore, as far as it concerns the subletting of furnished premises, my answer to the right hon. Gentleman is "No." I think it has been generally regarded as being in the public interest that this kind of sub-letting should not be encouraged. Moreover, there is a penalty for charging excessive rent in the case of furnished lettings. I would like to discuss the technical side of this matter with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ammon: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.— (Provisions as to excessive rent in the case of certain decontrolled houses.)

With respect to any dwelling-house of which the rateable value on the appointed day did not exceed the respective amount specified in Section two (Decontrol of certain houses) of this Act which, by the operation of the principal Acts has already or may become decontrolled the following provisions may apply: if complaint is made by a tenant to the council of the county borough or county district in which the dwelling-house is situated that he is being required to pay an excessive rent in respect of such dwelling-house, regard being had to the situation, accommodation, and amenities thereof, the said council, upon being satisfied that the rent appearsprima facie to be excessive, may institute proceedings in the county court against the landlord thereof and the court may determine the appropriate rent which, having regard to all the circumstances, should be paid by the tenant and may, at the discretion of the court,. order the return of excess payments already made.—[Mr. Salt.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Salt: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this new Clause is to do something to protect tenants who are at present paying excessive rents. One of the results of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be to continue the control in the case of 600,000 houses. Undoubtedly that provision is very much welcomed by the House, and I do not think sufficient appreciation has been shown of the action of the Minister of Health in bringing it forward. It will certainly be of incalculable value to the tenants now occupying those houses; but unfortunately there is a gap, and some 600,000 houses have been decontrolled. Those houses are of the smaller and cheaper class. The same reasons which caused the Ridley Committee to come to the conclusion that the 600,000 houses should continue under control apply to the houses that have been decontrolled. Everybody realises that the trouble is that there are not sufficient houses to let at low rents. The Marley Committee were optimistic, as many of us were, and thought that houses were being built at such a rate that there would be sufficient, and that then decontrol would be more satisfactory than the present system. In the City of Birmingham, for instance, when I joined the city council some 14 years ago, it appeared to me that a very short time, say three or four years, would be sufficient to provide the number of houses which it then seemed likely would be required. Unfortunately, to-day, we are no nearer the solution of the problem, despite the fact that Birmingham has built 47,500 municipal houses. I believe that is a greater proportion than is to be found in any other city in the Kingdom, and we are continuing to build between 2,000 and 3,000 houses a year, yet it is stated by the officials that it will be at least five or six years before we shall have met the needs of the present time in any way.
Unfortunately, advantage is taken of the shortage of houses to exploit tenants. We find that houses of a rateable value of from£4 to £5 are increased by an average of not less than 46 per cent., and that houses of a rateable value of £13 are increased by as much as 61.5 per cent. Indeed, there are houses in Birmingham to-day which had a pre-war rental of 6s. 6d. a week in regard to

which, only in the last few weeks, notice has been sent to the tenants raising the rental to 25s. When one considers that men living in these houses are, to my personal knowledge, workers in the railway and postal services, many of them receiving less than£3 a week, men with wives and families, it will be realised how important it is that something should be done to protect them. The purpose of this Clause is to permit the tenant who thinks he is being called upon to pay an excessive rent to apply to the corporation or county borough, and if the officials believe that his case is one that should go before the county court, the authority will take the onus of proceeding with it. This Clause has the backing of the whole of the Birmingham City Council. Although it is composed predominantly of members of my own party, there is no division on it whatsoever on this question, and there is a unanimous desire that something should be done to prevent the exploitation of the tenants.
There is no likelihood that frivolous cases would be taken to the county court, since the corporation would prevent that happening. I have authority to say that one of the Judges in Birmingham has stated that he would welcome such cases in his court and that he has no fear of the extra work that is likely to be brought before him, as he feels that the position is one that ought to be looked into. If we can obtain from the Minister some assistance in this way, I believe that the publicity given to such cases would remove the likelihood of many of them occurring. At the present time there is a diminishing number of controlled houses, due to the fact that they are being pulled down, and owing also to the beneficent Acts that the Minister himself has brought in, affecting slum clearance and overcrowding, there is an increasing difficulty in supplying those houses that are needed. I think that if something were done in the way proposed by this Clause, it would be generally welcomed.
I will mention one particular point that not only affects the City of Birmingham, but I am assured that the Association of Municipal Corporations are in agreement with it, and that is that at the present time large blocks of houses are being purchased from the good landlords—and we have plenty of them in our own town—


by big syndicates, which are taking advantage of the opportunity of sending up the rents by purchasing these houses. Consequently, the trouble to-day is being increased as the opportunity occurs. I think the Minister may well consider this Clause favourably, and as a little while ago it was stated that 25 per cent. of the Clauses had been met, this is another case in which he can keep the average up. I, therefore, commend this Clause to the House.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Cartland: I beg to second the Motion.
I am certain that anything from the City of Birmingham will appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister, particularly when he remembers our very remarkable record, to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Yardley Division (Mr. Salt) referred, in the way of municipal house-building. I hope the House will not think that this Clause is designed to deal with something which affects Birmingham only, because, as far as I can make out from conversation with Members who sit for other industrial centres, they are experiencing exactly the same kind of thing. On account of the enormous immigration that has taken place into Birmingham, we are suffering from this problem rather more acutely than are some other places, but there is no doubt that hon. Members in all parts of the House can say from their own experience that this ramp, because that is the word for it, is taking place in many other towns as well.
There is nothing in the Bill which protects the tenant who is living in a decontrolled house from being faced with the sort of grinding rent to which my hon. Friend referred. He mentioned the case, of which all those who sit for Birmingham constituencies know, of a 6s. 6d. house the tenant of which was suddenly faced with a rise in rent up to 25s. That, of course, is exceptional, but I could give case after case where excessive rents are being demanded. Here is one of a rise from 10s. 5¾d. up to 21s.; I have one from 7s. 3¼d. up to 15s., and one from 6s. 8¼d. up to 16s.; and I could give many more. The point that I am making is that there is nothing in the Bill as it stands which will protect such tenants. What I would really like to see is the re-control of all these houses, but what we

suggest is—and it seems to me a most reasonable and sensible suggestion—that the tenant who is faced with what he believes to be an excessive rent should be able to go to the local authority—that is an added safeguard—and explain the position, and that the local authority should then be able to take action against that sort of thing. All of us must know that it is not an easy thing for a tenant to take action against his landlord, but if he is able to go to court with the whole force of the corporation behind him, I believe it will be found that we can deal effectively with some of these excessive rent charges.
I feel that it was a pity that when the Ridley Committee were sitting, they did not take any oral evidence from any of the local authorities. They took oral evidence from the London County Council, but that was the only local authority from which they did take such evidence.

Mr. Montague: There was only one member, and he did not speak for the county council.

Mr. Cartland: That makes my case all the stronger. The Birmingham Council had the opportunity to submit written evidence, but that is not of the same value as oral evidence. This is a new problem, and I believe that if the local authorities had been given an opportunity of submitting oral evidence and of being questioned upon it, the Committee must have been convinced that this was a definite Problem which must be dealt with if other parts of rent restriction are to be dealt with. The Committee said that as regards privately-owned new houses, information as to rents was very incomplete, but it was sufficient to show that, in general, the rents charged were considerably higher than the rents of small decontrolled houses. That is the point I want to make. This new Clause is an attempt to deal with the problem on the simplest lines and it ought to appeal to my right hon. Friend. All the letters that one gets from industrial constituencies deal with housing conditions and the difficulties of finding alternative accommodation in face of the tremendous shortage, and of having to pay these big rents. It is fantastic to expect tenants to pay 50 per cent. of their wages in rent. I hope that my right hon. Friend will meet the city of Birmingham in this matter. By doing that he will meet a great demand of many industrial districts.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House will pay considerable respect to any proposal moved by the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt). Upstairs in Committee he consistently supported us irrespective of party divisions, and we are, therefore, very pleased to examine without any party predilections any proposal he makes. In Committee we moved that the new decontrolled B class tenants should have the right of appeal to a county court, and that is, in essence, what is proposed in this new Clause. We were defeated upon that. We then moved that there should be tenancy courts set up where all questions of grievance and difficulty between landlord and tenant should be submitted for adjudication. By our second proposal we were giving consideration to the difficulties of those who had already been decontrolled. One of the difficulties we have with regard to this new Clause is that it provides concessions for only a certain small class of tenant. None the less, we have to face the fact that there are grievances here.
Under the new Clause the tenant who feels he is being charged an excessive rent may appeal to his council that they in turn should go to the county court and get a decision from a judge that an excessive rent has been charged, and the judge may fix what is called in the Clause the "appropriate rent." That is rather a heavy responsibility for the judge without any indication as to the limit which Parliament thinks ought to be imposed upon these decontrolled tenants. At a later stage we have an Amendment, which, I trust, will receive the support of all hon. Gentlemen who represent Birmingham, in which we ask that no more than a maximum of 10 per cent. should be imposed by way of increase on decontrolled B class houses. By the proposal in this new Clause it is left to the unfettered decision of the county court judge to decide what is the appropriate amount of increased plunder which the proprietor of a property should be allowed to exact from a decontrolled B class tenant.
Some surprise was evinced in certain quarters of the House at the figures which the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) cited for Birmingham about increases which have taken place where decontrol has been permitted. We have

however, long had the official figures on the subject. The Ministry of Labour supplied evidence to the Ridley Committee stating that when class C houses were decontrolled in London those with an average rental of 8s. 6d. went up to Its 12s 6d. In the county boroughs, excluding Greater London, the increase was about one-third; for urban districts, excluding Greater London, the increase was over one-quarter per cent.; and in the rural districts it was about one-quarter. With these figures in front of us what justification can the right hon. Gentleman have for throwing another 400,000 householders to the wolves? It is true that there are some districts where there may already be a sufficiency of this particular type of house and that the landlord will not be able to exact anything in the way of an excessive increase. There is, however, here and there, all over the land a scarcity of houses, and immediately decontrol takes place an increase of rent will follow. That is indeed the purpose of this Bill; it is to enable the proprietors of these properties to increase their rents.
The hon. Members who have spoken for Birmingham say that they speak for a united Birmingham City Council. There is, therefore, no political association with hon. Members on this side of the House and they are endeavouring to protect a class of tenants who presumably support them politically. Whether that be so or not is a matter of indifference to this side. This is another step on the road to creating injustice. Already there are any number of anomalies; these Acts are riddled with them. In the view of myself, and of many of my hon. Friends, the mere continuance of these Acts at the present time solves nothing. The only real remedy would be to start afresh with something in the nature of tenancy courts. Whether these views will ultimately commend themselves to the Government or to Members of Parliament on the Government side I cannot say, and we are not discussing them now. What we are discussing is whether, when this Bill becomes an Act, the proprietors of these decontrolled upper-class houses shall be permitted to increase rents without any control whatsoever, either through city councils, representing public opinion, in the first instance, and the law courts later. That is the issue which the hon. Member who moved the new


Clause has put before the House, and if we correctly interpret his point of view we on these benches propose to give it any support which we can in the Division Lobby.

9.7 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I hesitate very much to oppose any proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt), who adorns the constituency which adjoins my own, and I know that in the city of Birmingham rather exceptional conditions do exist, but I feel that in this case I have no choice but to oppose the proposed new Clause, because it will, if embodied in the Bill, introduce a far-reaching change based upon some exceptional conditions. It will mean that the councils will be perpetually bothered by a vast number of discontented tenants. That will be inevitable, although the work of councils is already excessive and Parliament is continually placing more and more work upon them. I know that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley has told us, the Birmingham City Council is prepared to undertake this task, but I am certain that very few other councils throughout the country will be prepared to face the vast amount of work which would be thrust upon them. When one considers the character of that work, I think that view will become more obvious. If this Clause is passed there will be some very indefinite considerations into which the councils will have to go. The Clause speaks of a complaint being made that a tenant has been required to pay an excessive rent in respect of a dwelling house:
regard being had to the situation, accommodation and amenities.
To settle that point will involve a great deal of inquiry and a great deal of work, and if the council decide to take the matter to court it will throw further work upon the courts. I think it is most undesirable that we should impose vague and uncertain duties upon the courts, and still more upon the councils. As the Clause is drafted all those duties are purely optional. In the first place, the council, if satisfied that aprima facie case ha.; been made out, "may" institute proceedings, and then the court "may" determine what is a proper rent, and having done that "may" order repayment to be made retrospectively. To cast upon the councils and upon the county

courts vague duties of that sort—indeed, they are not imposed as duties; they are merely optional rights—would leave the councils and the courts in great difficulty, and in view of the fact that the Clause is retrospective, because it concerns houses which have already become decontrolled in some cases, it does involve a measure of recontrol, and to introduce any measure of recontrol at this stage would be, I suggest, fundamentally vicious. It will shake the confidence of investors in house property. Although it is true to say that the principal Acts have never touched houses built since the War, none the less once we start doing something which involves some measure of recontrol, people will not know where it is going to end. They will say that it is very likely that at some future date, perhaps under some other Government, measures of recontrol will be introduced which will affect not only pre-war houses and not only houses already built but, perhaps, houses which may be built in future. Any such measure will, I am sure, have such a discouraging effect upon the building of small houses as seriously to impair our prospects of properly rehousing the people.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I am afraid that I cannot congratulate the hon. Member for Tam-worth (Sir J. Mellor). Perhaps one may admire his courage in coming forward to defend the profiteers, because the only people who would be affected by this Clause would be people who are out to obtain excessive rents. It does not apply to the investor who is getting only a fair return on his investment, striking only at those who are imposing excessive rents such as are an absolute disgrace and should never be permitted. I rise simply to appeal to the Minister to accept this Clause, and to say that he ought not to have a closed mind on the subject. With decontrol taking place by stages, it is just as well that there should be a certain amount of experiment with regard to the future, and I think this Clause will provide a useful experiment in connection with decontrol. It strikes at cases where there has been an excessive increase of rent. The figures that were given by my right hon. Friend above the Gangway, and that are in the Ridley report, show that disgraceful increases have been exacted by owners of property when the property became decontrolled. I hope


that the Minister of Health will take a courageous line with regard to this Clause and will accept it, so that we may see the possibility of creating machinery giving tenants a certain amount of security regarding their rent.
The argument has been employed that a terrible burden will be put upon county court judges. In another Committee I have been reproved because of my lack of faith in some of our judges, in their judicial capacity. I have been told that it is very sound to leave matters to these skilled lawyers, who can be trusted, because of their experience of the law, to take a judicial viewpoint and to give reasonable decisions. I hope that the people who lectured me will now show their own faith in the county court judges. I will point out to the Minister that the county court judges would not be faced with a large series of cases badly presented, but that the machinery is here provided for the local authority to consider cases and to come to a decision whether a rent is extortionate and whether to take the case to the courts. It will not be that thousands of people, when their rent is put up, will immediately flock into the county courts asking for decisions in their favour. The matter will first of all be considered by the local authority, who will take into account the circumstances in the district, the position as to supply of houses, and other factors, and will be able to decide what they consider a fair increase, if a case can be made out for an increase. The owners of property will have to persuade the local authority what they think is reasonable. When the matter gets to the county court judge, the pros and cons will be presented in such a fashion that it will be a comparatively simple matter for him to come to a decision and to fix the appropriate rent.
The further argument has been used that the proposed new Clause would be retrospective. That is one of the advantageous features of it. So many people have already been treated so badly in this respect that the proposal will provide a certain measure of justice for them. I hope that the Minister of Health will show real consideration of this Clause and will accept it, in view of its possibilities from the experimental point of view. We could very well do with some experiments in the fixing of rents. The Clause

would apply only to people who have been badly treated since their houses were decontrolled. It would bring to them a measure of justice. I hope that there will be some appearance on the part of the Government that they are looking at this matter from a broad point of view, in the interests of the mass of the people.
The hon. Member who last spoke got into such a state about the investing public and how they would become so uncertain that nobody would invest in housing, and all the rest of it, and all because one of his Conservative friends is anxious to put an end to the practices of those miserable creatures who pray upon the housing needs of their fellows by charging extortionate rents, in the desperate housing position that exists in some districts. I hope that the Minister will show some of that courage which we are told he possesses, and some of the enlightenment which he was said to possess and which he managed to get across while he was Postmaster-General. I hope that he will realise that this provision may be a very valuable experiment in the control of housing for the people.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Cassells: We have heard an astonishing speech from the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor). I want to point out to him as shortly as I can the error of his ways. I assume that he is prepared to admit the figures which were placed before the House by the Mover of the Clause. Perhaps I might repeat for the benefit of hon. Members that rentals of£13 per annum were increased by 61.5 per cent., and that rentals of 6s. 6d. a week were increased to 25s. weekly.

Sir J. Mellor: I quite accepted the fact that the conditions in Birmingham were exceptional.

Mr. Cassells: The increase of the weekly rental of 6s. 6d. to 25s. was an approximate increase of 400 per cent. The hon. Baronet evidently proceeds upon the fallacious assumption that Birmingham is an isolated example. Let me point out to him that that is far removed from the case. I cannot speak for the position in the English area, but I can assure the House that the Scottish position is not


one whit different. What is actually happening in Scotland, under the system of decontrol as we have it at the present moment, is that the tenant of a decontrolled dwelling is paying, say,£20 per annum. The proprietor comes to him and says: "Look here, I want £35 per annum." The tenant says: "I cannot pay it." There is no security of tenure and the result is that the proprietor turns to the tenant and says: "Pay or get out." The inevitable result is that, if the tenant cannot pay, he gets out, a new tenant comes in, and again when the new tenancy has been created the same vicious system is appliedad infinitum.
The hon. Baronet said, first of all, that it would involve a great deal of inquiry and work by the local authorities concerned, and thereafter upon the county court. If you accept all these premises, is it the hon. Baronet's attitude that the right to protect the individual tenant from victimisation and what has been described as nothing short of legalised blackmail is to be prevented in order to obviate any possibility of extra work? He told us, secondly, that the councils would be compelled to go into certain considerations. Does he suggest that those are improper considerations? To my mind they are most proper and relevant considerations. The local authority will be required to consider the question from the point of view of situation, of accommodation and of amenities. On his third point he completely let the cat out of the bag. He admits precisely the arguments which have emanated day by day from these benches. He said that the Clause would shake the confidence of investors. That is precisely what we have been maintaining—that, with the system of decontrol, in so far as rental charges are concerned, there is nothing apart from what the right hon. Gentleman has described as a positive financial ramp.
With regard to the Clause, I am sorry to say that I honestly believe that, even if it becomes law, there will still definitely be victimisation, because this is what will probably happen: The tenant will recognise, first of all, that he has no security of tenure. It is, therefore, rather a difficult point to consider what security he has in so far as rental is concerned. If he has sufficient courage to make a complaint to the local authority with regard to excessive rent, the reaction may quite

possibly be that the landlord will immediately serve a notice to remove, take the tenant to the court, and operate ejection. But, whether that is the case or not, I believe that there are cases which will be adequately covered by the Clause and I, and I believe all on this side, will welcome it and support it in the Lobby.

9.29 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: A proposal very much of this character was debated at considerable length in Committee and rejected by a large majority. That majority was not, of course, unsympathetic to the interests of tenants. Those of us who took a different view strongly upheld the opinion that, in the interests of housing, of tenants and of landlords themselves, the proposals are detrimental and would not in fact achieve the purpose at which they aim. My hon. Friend described the position as far as Birmingham is concerned, and he has been supported by other friends of mine, and it is a noteworthy thing—it may be of some interest to Birmingham, and especially to Birmingham Conservatives—that he has had the support of the right hon. Gentleman who is leading the Labour Opposition and, not by any means least, of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). It only needs the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to complete the picture.
As a matter of fact, this proposal involves three things which have been very carefully considered by respective committees which have looked into the matter. It is, in fact, a proposition which would make the local authorities throughout the country a tenancy court—that is why it has appealed to the right hon. Gentleman opposite—and it would make the county court in the nature of an appeal court against their decision and, to crown it all, it would involve what the hon. Member for Camlachie so jubilantly acquiesced in. retrospective legislation. As far as I know, there is not a single association of local authorities which has considered such a proposal. I would leave to the imagination of hon. Members what they would think if this was seriously put before them.
But I want to deal with the matter on more general lines. The question of putting back, at any rate into a measure of control, houses which have already been decontrolled, has been considered on a number of occasions, and I think the


most substantial objections were put forward by the Marley Committee, which could not be regarded as unsympathetic to the needs and desires of tenants. They discussed the proposition in very plain terms. They said, in the first place, that it would be open to the general objections applying to all retrospective legislation. Secondly, is would be logically difficult to stop at recontrolling old houses. The same reasoning would lead to the control of new houses. I was rather surprised at hon. Members when they criticised the argument that this would have an adverse effect on building operations and on the capital invested in them. Lord Marley and his colleagues, among other reasons which they advance, said:
For these reasons we feel that the psychological effect of the proposal would be to check the confidence of private capital and private enterprise in the building industry.
That is a very serious thing, and I am glad the committee recognised that it is a matter of vital importance to the building trade of this country.

Mr. Cartland: Was not that a general measure of recontrol affecting all landlords?

Sir K. Wood: The suggestion has been constantly that in one form or another recontrol should be brought about. The committee said, and it is a very noteworthy admission:
The difficulties we have just enumerated were appreciated by most of the witnesses appearing on behalf of tenants who suggested the recontrol of decontrolled houses, and they were disposed to withdraw their suggestion when the difficulties were brought out in discussion.
This same matter was considered by the Ridley Committee. I may be a particularly stony-hearted man, but the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) is not. He and his colleagues had all this evidence before them. The statements of the Manchester Corporation were brought before the Committee, and they came to the same conclusion as the Marley Committee. In fact, the only difference that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead had with the Committee was on the question of how decontrol should be brought about.

Mr. Johnston: As we understand it, the Clause does not propose recontrol, but deals with an entirely different matter, and it is trifling with the House for the

right hon. Gentleman to take up time in arguing on that line.

Sir K. Wood: This is in fact another means of getting back into control houses that have already been decontrolled. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The final sentence of the Clause is this:
The court may determine the appropriate rent which, having regard to all the circumstances, should be paid by the tenant, and may, at the discretion of the court, order the return of excess payments already made.
If that is not going back to control, I do not understand the meaning of the word. That is certainly recontrol, and I should have thought that no one would have denied it. All that I am saying, in answer to my hon. Friends, is that at any rate all the committees that have considered this matter came definitely to the same conclusion, that, not in the interests of landlords, but in the interests of tenants in the long run, such a proposal would be unwise. Therefore, for all these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Clause.

Mr. Montague: Is it not a fact that the present Bill brings the lower class B houses into recontrol? And yet the right hon. Gentleman argues that recontrol is quite out of the question and to the disadvantage of the tenants. This Bill recontrols.

Sir K. Wood: Yes, a limited class are retained in control, for the reasons that have been given. I am stating generally that both the Marley Committee and the Ridley Committee came to the same conclusion, and I say that for all these reasons, in the interests of the tenants themselves, I could not for a moment ask the House to accept the proposed new Clause. I appreciate the reasons that have moved my hon. Friends to put it down, but I hope they will see, on reconsideration of the matter and on the long view which we must take, that it cannot be accepted.

9.41 p.m.

Wing-Commander Wright: I rise to ask the Minister to reconsider what he has said, and to consider the appeal that has already been made so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt) and by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland). I am somewhat astounded by the statement


of my hon. Friend the Member for Tam-worth (Sir J. Mellor), who seems to think that one of the greatest objections to our proposal is that it would bring a tremendous number of cases before the local authorities. Surely, if that be correct, no stronger argument could possibly be advanced in favour of the Clause.
I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister; it seems to me to be entirely illogical. The object of the proposed new Clause is purely to bring justice to those unfortunate people who to-day are being exploited because they live in decontrolled class C houses. The Minister himself admits that his own Bill is keeping in control the lower class B houses, and, even if the Clause would have that effect, it would only be doing exactly the same thing as the Bill is doing for those houses which have not yet been decontrolled. The state of housing in Binning-ham in particular, where I have a great deal of knowledge of what is going on, is really terrible. There is another effect which has not yet been pointed out, and that is that these people are too terrified even to complain when their houses are in a hopelessly bad condition. I will give the House one case, which is by no means the worst. It is the case of one of my constituents, who wrote to me as follows:
I am writing to ask you to please do your best for the likes of us in the decontrolled houses. It's appalling the conditions under which we have to live, and, as I understand, there is no law for us; if we complain to the landlord, we are told that if we are not satisfied we can get out.
This is the case of a five-roomed pre-War house for which the tenant is actually paying, with rates, 18s. 7d. a week, whereas for an exactly similar house next door the rent charged is 9s. 9d. per week. I sent my agent to make for me an absolutely unbiased report on the state of affairs, and this is the report he has sent me:
The house is in a very damp condition. The floors in the kitchen and scullery are stone, and apparently laid straight on damp earth. Consequently the wet creeps up above the tiles. Dry rot has set in the floors of the front room. The windows in this room will not open, and the frames appear to be falling to pieces. The fire grate in the front room is broken, and it is impossible to light a fire. In the top back room the walls are damp, and there is a z-feet square hole in the ceiling which exposes slates. The middle room upstairs is also shockingly damp, and the ceiling continually drips water in various

places during a rain storm. The only apparently decently habitable room is the front room upstairs, but this too is very draughty and cold. The landlord is charging a rent for this house of 15s. a week plus rates, while the house next door, which is exactly the same but controlled, is only 9s. 9d. a week.
He goes on to say—and this is the most significant sentence in the whole report—that the tenant:
is anxious that we should do nothing to force the landlord's hand, in case he takes advantage of the situation and orders them out.
How is it possible to justify a policy which, in the case of two men, working probably for the same wage in the same factory, living next door to each other, allows one to be paying 15s. or 16s. a week for a hovel of that type, while the other is paying only 9s. 9d. a week, probably for a perfectly good house? Since the Government have adopted the policy of bringing these houses back into control, I cannot see why we should allow this grave injustice to go on in regard to one type of tenant. The situation in Birmingham, I think, is pretty well known. It is appalling to get the letters that we do get from young people who want to get married, or are married and have young families coming on, but have no home to go to, because there are no houses available. There are 9,641 lodger cases in Birmingham to-day still trying to get houses, and 1,692 young couples trying to get houses. To this are added 14,000 living in these decontrolled houses who are clamouring to get into muncipal houses, in order to escape from the persecution that they are undergoing. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this. It is a most serious matter, which, in bare justice, calls for reconsideration.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I, too, would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision. I am beginning to doubt his sympathy. He suggested that the reason, or one of the reasons, for his attitude is that the Clause would not do what hon. Gentlemen who have spoken want it to do. He reiterated the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor), that this would throw work upon the local authority, and turn it into a sort of court. He further suggested that the local authorities would not welcome this work, and gave as his reason that no association of local authorities had asked for this. I think that, if he had


put it to an association of local authorities that this was the only thing they could have in order to remedy what was happening at the present time, in spite of what may be the difficulty of the task they would have been willing to undertake it.
I can assure the hon. Members from Birmingham that the conditions in their city are not exclusive to Birmingham. Some little time ago, at the instigation of the Minister of Health, the public assistance committee of the Lancashire County Council were requested to make an inquiry into the excessive payments being made to individuals in receipt of Poor Law relief. The committee found that in 9 cases out of 10, where payments had to be made in excess of the allowance which is provided, it was in order to meet claims for excessive rents. We found that people who were, of necessity, coming to the public assistance committee were living in houses rented at 17s. to 20s. a week. Time and again these people have been told by relieving officers that they must get cheaper houses, but there were none available. I am convinced that, in a great many of those cases, if powers such as are asked for in the Clause had been available, we could have proved that the excessive rent which was being paid out of the rates, through the public assistance committee, was going to a landlord who was demanding an extortionate rent. The position of these people is such that they cannot move. One word of advice which I would give to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Erdington (Wing-Commander Wright) is that he should send the report he has received from his agent to the sanitary authority in Birmingham. Whatever happens to this Clause, that sort of thing should not be to continue.
The suggestion has been made that the county court judge is not the best possible person to determine what the rent should be. I would, perhaps, agree. I am not enamoured of the judgment of county court judges in this respect. But I am prepared to accept their judgment against the alternative in this Bill, which is the landlord's judgment. The county court judge is more likely to be just than the landlord, who is deciding for himself. I appeal to the Minister at least to make it possible for these cases, which are numerous in almost every district, to

come before the court, and to find some measure whereby justice can be obtained. As my hon. Friend below the Gangway suggested, it would, at any rate, be an experiment. Somebody said that it would not work. If you put it into an Act of Parliament, we shall see whether it will be worked. I believe local authorities would be prepared to make it work, in order to overcome the difficulties that they are facing.

9.49 P.m.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: I have, on every occasion, I think, on which I have addressed the House about this problem of rent restrictions, called attention to the evil, as I see it, of making this matter a subject of litigation. If I did my duty by my own profession, I should perhaps, speak and vote in favour of this Clause, but I have held the view for a very long time that lawyers and judges, however distinguished, are not really the best people to undertake the task of looking into questions of this sort, which would depend almost entirely for their solution on, first, economic considerations, and, secondly, on matters of great human interest which everybody who has had anything to do with this problem feels are at the root of every case. I have taken the view that these Acts of Parliament, which we are seeking further to amend by this particular Clause, have produced a very large measure of injustice and are continuing to do so. I am not considering justice from the point of view of particular individuals so much as the larger question of the feeling of a great number of people that the inequalities produced by this legislation make a series of injustices, some people feeling that they are getting advantages as a result and others that they are getting their position worsened.
If it be granted that there are a number of cases—and an illustration was given by the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Wing-Commander Wright) a few minutes ago—which we all know about, which shock us, let us see what we are proposing to put in its place and how we are proposing by this new Clause to remedy the matter. One thing ought to be reasonably certain—I am sure that I can appeal to the sense of justice of hon. Members sitting in all parts of the House—namely, that this matter should not be left to the vagaries of particular cases.


We should try to get for the benefit of the tenants and the benefit of the landlords—I am speaking, as I always do, for the small landlords, owning perhaps one, two or three houses—some sort of standard, so that people may know what they are about. We want to be perfectly certain that in aiming at the far too many people who are making use of their power over property to draw resources for themselves out of the necessities of their poorer brethen, we are not at the same time hitting other people whom nobody wants to hit.
I do not like the expressions "good landlord" or "bad landlord," because I am not a believer in the view that you can divide human nature into all black and all white; but one cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that there are a number of people who may intend well but who do become blinded by self-interest. That is not confined always to the individual who is receiving the rent any more than to the individual who is paying it. When I look at this Clause in order to see what it is going to effect, I am struck by the fact that there is no standard here by which the thing is to be measured.
What are we proposing to do? I beg hon. Members opposite to pay attention to this point, because I am sure they do not want to set up a series of injustices or inequities, as this Clause would do, They are, first of all, leaving it to be a matter of opinion of the local authority, which presumably must judge, in the long run, by a majority. That is the way in which it expresses its opinion. We all know that opinions differ and must differ in differing cases, just as there will be differences when different people happen to be sitting. Upon a particular day a certain number of people may be present at a meeting of the local authority, and on another day a certain number of different people may be present or, at any rate, not all the same people, and you will get in similar circumstances different results. Whatever can be said for the system of a rent court under which the same court, the same tribunal, is to deal with the matter, I venture in all sincerity to submit that there can be no good results spread over the whole, by and large, or achieved by a tribunal which consists of differing members on differing days.
How are you to get rid of that difficulty? The logical thing to do when a decision has been reached is to say: "You shall do so and so." The Clause does not say that. Nothing of the sort. It is then left to the discretion of the local authority as to whether they will or will not proceed with the next step. The word is "may," not "shall." There is nothing in the Clause from the point of view of legal construction which would enable the court to do that which the court can sometimes do in an appropriate case, namely, turn "may" into "shall."

Mr. Cassells: Does the hon. and learned Member not appreciate the fact that the final and determining factor, in so far as the fixation of rent is concerned, is not so much the local authority but the judge to whom the local authority may apply?

Mr. Groom-Johnson: Of course, I appreciate it, but I am looking to see, first of all, how you are going to set this remarkable machinery into operation. The judge has no power to do anything until the local authority, with its differing members and its differing yardstick, on differing days, comes to the conclusion,prima facie, not that the rent is excessive, but appears to them to be excessive. In these words there is a lawyer's paradise. If I had been intending to draft this Clause in order to assist my own profession I do not think that I could have done it better. That is the first step, and when you have done that, the next step, as a logical result, surely should be that the local authority should have the duty definitely cast upon them of having to put the machinery into operation, instead of saying that they "may" do so. The decision as to whether they will do it or not is to be left again, I suppose, from day to day according to the people who happen to be present.
Some of us know that landlords, builders and all sorts of people sit on local authorities. It is right that all classes of the community should be on the local authorities, but what would hon. Members opposite say if, on a particular day, it turned out that those people who were ardent housing reformers happen to be engaged on a housing conference somewhere and are


not present at the meeting of the local authority, but on the following day they are present, and on the following day you get a different result. [Interruption.] It is not a fantastic case. The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) said, "Pass the Clause, and we will make it work." Do not let us give the local authority the troublesome and difficult task of operating under a Clause which is as full of holes as a colander. If and when proceedings are instituted and the court has the proceedings before it, there will probably be legal advisers on both sides, and we shall then see that melancholy spectacle which we all remember after the War when the courts were packed with cases on this question, with the result that much money was spent on litigation which had far better in those days been spent on houses.
The Clause says that "the court may determine the appropriate rent." Who is going to judge? The court. The court is to say, upon evidence, what it thinks on a particular day. County court judges exercise their duty and perform their tasks under the Rent Restrictions Acts with every endeavour to produce uniformity of results as well as they can, and they do it to a large extent, because their jurisdiction under the existing Acts is laid down with some certainty. It is true that we get varying decisions in different parts of the country in regard to some matters which are left to the discretion of the county court judges. As this Clause stands, it would leave the decision to the county court judge, without any guide except the words, "which, having regard to the circumstances appears to him to be a fair rent." That may enable an injustice to be done.
At the best you are taking the opinion of one man, instead of looking at the true position arrived at under the Acts as they stand. Whatever else may be said about the present Acts, they do provide a system which we have learned to understand. A standard is set up by them and people know what increases they can make and although they may have given rise to a great deal of difficulty, they do, at least, achieve some amount of certainty and uniformity. Finally, when the county court judge has exercised this jurisdiction, so difficult for an individual, he may or may not decide whether he will or will

not order the return of some part of what he thinks is excess rent.

Mr. Cassells: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that English county court judges are incapable of applying the legal doctrine ofquantum meruit?

Mr. Croom-Johnson: I do not think that a particular county court judge would be in any difficulty about it. What I am pointing out is that there is a large number of them and that you will get fresh inequalities throughout the country. Of that I am morally convinced. I am not saying that this system may not work if you proceed to define what you are going to do and set up some sort of standard but in this Clause it is proposed to abandon the standards which were set up under the Act of 1914. We are asked to give the go by to all that and to leave ourselves without any guide or yardstick. However much we may desire—and we all desire—to see that the necessities of tenants or would-be tenants are not made use of by undesirable people who happen to own property, I suggest that a Clause of this sort is not going to help the solution of the difficulty.
It would be out of order to attempt to indicate how I think the problem should be dealt with. I have indicated already with sufficient clearness I think, that I see no ultimate good likely to come out of the system which arose during the War, but I must not dilate upon that subject now. But as I see it, this Clause would make confusion worse confounded. It is not a practical remedy; it is not a certain remedy. It does not put the duty where the duty ought to be put, even if this should be the right method. I suggest to my hon. Friends, whose reasons for moving the Clause and calling attention to the problem we all appreciate, that it ought to be withdrawn and that another attempt should be made on some other occasion to get this thing into something like working order.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I support this Clause which I regard as a despairing effort to do something for the protection of the tenants of decontrolled houses. It seemed to me that many of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken suggested a part of the name of the constituency which he


represents. I thought they were very watery indeed. The hon. Member argued very learnedly as a lawyer, but does he really contend that in these cases the council and the county court judge would not be able to determine what was a fair rent in circumstances such as we have heard enumerated this evening by hon. Members from Birmingham and Nottingham and other towns all over the country? I was in Bournemouth last summer and I found there houses which were formerly let at 12s. 6d. a week now let at 25s. a week. I have been told of an instance of two houses side by side, one of which is controlled and is let at 9s. a week while the other is decontrolled and is let at 15s. 6d. a week. Surely very little legal argument is needed in a case of that sort. It is a matter of common sense and not of abstruse legal argument.
A local council which is dealing day by day with matters of this kind will know exactly what are the normal rents appertaining to a particular district in its area. If, by chance, a house becomes decontrolled in that area and the rent leaps up by 100 per cent. it will not take the council long to determine that that is an abnormal rent and one worthy of being reported with a view to the judge giving a decision upon it. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) made what some of my hon. Friends would probably regard as a very reactionary speech but I do not think it was a reactionary speech for him, because he was speaking for the class he represents, namely, the investor class. He spoke about shaking the confidence of investors by accepting a Clause of this kind. I think we are more likely to shake the confidence of investors by allowing a feeling of uncertainty to he created in the minds of those who want to invest in house property, as a result of the actions of rapacious landlords Sooner or later it is bound to be recognised that something must be done to deal with them.
This new Clause has been submitted by a representative of Birmingham who told the Minister of Health that the city council of Birmingham were composed in the main of members of his own party. Surely, if they are not afraid to undertake to work this system and if they are not afraid of shaking the confidence

of investors, the right hon. Gentleman has no need to be afraid. The hon. Member for Tamworth and other hon. Members opposite do not like to see 100 per cent. dividends recorded in the newspapers. It is not good for the ordinary working man to see that sort of thing. You have invented bonus shares so that you can keep your dividends down to what they used to be, only they are paid on twice the amount of capital. It is not good for business to have this 100 per cent. increase in rent and it is not good for the investor. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) said that he did not like the term "good landlords and bad landlords." I do not think that anybody in the House does, but they are here. The peculiar thing is that it is sometimes the same man. I have not the slightest doubt that some of our most regular churchgoers have that side of human nature about which he spoke, because he said that he believed you Could not divide human nature. It is possible for one side of the man to go to church on Sunday and for the other side of him to be drawing in the shekels from poverty. This Clause is to protect the poor fellow who may be going to church from unwittingly going to damnation. It is something more than a practical proposal; it is something which has an application which is nearly divine.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said that he was afraid that it was re-instituting control. I cannot see that. Surely there is a margin between what is a reasonable rent and an increasing rent. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were very feeble indeed. I am not going to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sick to death of hearing people appeal to him. I wonder why they waste their time. They are only making him more adamant. The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of a character that we used to have on a North country paper when I was a little younger than I am to-day. We used to call him Uncle Toby. He was supposed to be kind to feathered friends. I do not know whether he was so or not, but it was said that he was. The right hon. Gentleman has many appeals made to him, and it is made to appear that he is very kind indeed. When it comes down to tintacks—and these are not feathered


friends but human beings—people cannot get relief in the matter of the rents they have to pay. Therefore, he may be like Uncle Toby because somebody says that he is kind and he is not. If he does not accept the Clause to-night—and it is a practical Clause, and the last chance that we shall have of saving the poor fellow who is in a decontrolled house from being skinned alive—he will miss an opportunity and will do a dis-service to the tenants of the decontrolled houses of the country.

10.20 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: At first I was very much in favour of this proposal; I liked the principle of it; but the more I consider it the more I dislike the machinery. I am afraid that the political views of councils may have a considerable bearing on the number of cases which are brought before the courts, and I would suggest that councils with what may be called progressive tendencies might tend to form themselves into anti-landlord councils. There is that danger, and the result would be an excessive number of cases being brought into the courts which would he extremely damaging to the whole of the vesting side of the housing business. I am sure the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt) looks upon the Birmingham City Council as being something in the nature of protective smelling-,:alts in this matter; they would see that this danger did not arise. What may be considered excessive in one county may be very low in another, and it cannot be argued that the decision of one court can be taken as the data for all courts in fixing rents. The danger is a very real one that the political side may enter into the question and that an excessive number of cases may be brought before the courts. The result would be that landlords who are not charging excessive rents, who are decent landlords in many cases, would be penalised quite unnecessarily. I trust the House will weigh this matter very seriously before dealing with the new Clause.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Gardner: I seem to be like King Charles's head to the Minister of Health in this matter. He referred to me on the Second Reading and upstairs in Committee he mentioned me once or twice, and now on this proposal he has mentioned me by name again. In my opinion

the general findings of the Marley Committee do not cover this point. They expressed the opinion that they could not bring houses back into control. That is not the proposition here. The proposition here is to limit the rise in rent of houses which are decontrolled. The rise in rents is in some cases most exorbitant. On the Second Reading I gave the case of a six-roomed house in Silvertown which was being let at one guinea upstairs and one guinea down. Yesterday I had a case where a guinea is being charged for upstairs in a pre-war 10s. house and another£1 for downstairs. That was given to me by a member of the public assistance committee who heard an application for relief from one of the tenants concerned. I submit that these are exorbitant rises in rent, and that the Marley Committee never endorsed such a thing. It is in the interests of the landlords, whom the Minister of Health so ably represents, that some check should be put upon these rises.
We know that out of the more humane treatment which workless people have received since the War, landlords have been among the greatest beneficiaries. They have had their rents regularly all the time, but they are not satisfied. The moment a house is out of control the rent jumps to a height which is not reasonable, and in the interests of society generally there should be some check. The Minister is also concerned with overcrowding, and he knows that high rents will cause overcrowding. I have been looking up the figures for West Ham, and I find that in 1935 there were in West Ham 5,764 overcrowded houses. It is true that 1,911 of the houses were overcrowded only to the extent of the Conservative invention of half a person, but 3,853 of them were overcrowded by more than that. Decontrol will add to that overcrowding, and if there is on top of decontrol exorbitant rents, the overcrowding will become worse than ever. As Minister for Health, the right hon. Gentleman ought to give serious consideration to this' matter generally.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I wish to refer to the arguments that were used by the Minister against this Clause. I think that if the House considers these arguments, it will recognise that the right hon. Gentleman


had not a very strong case against the Clause. In the first place, in order to frighten the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt), the right hon. Gentleman said that it must be recognised that the Opposition were supporting the new Clause, and that even the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) supported it. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister is seeking the co-operation of the trade union movement, and to use such an argument in order to frighten hon. Members off is very cheap stuff indeed. The right hon. Gentleman's second argument was based on the fact that the Marley Committee's report in 1931 did not support the principle of this Clause. The Minister is forced to go back to 1931. He knows very well that the Marley Committee's report, or the report of any other committee in 1931, was based on entirely different circumstances from those which we are facing to-day. Therefore, that argument was a very weak one.
The right hon. Gentleman's third argument was that the court referred to in the Clause would be impracticable. I listened with amazement to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, and particularly to those of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), about the inefficiency and instability of local authorities and the inadvisability of placing any such power in the hands of a local authority. I have listened to speeches by the right hon. Gentleman, by every Scottish Minister and by hon. Members on all sides of the House -telling us of the great services rendered to the community by the local county and borough councils, and the work which the members of them are doing. Hon. Members should remember that when we ask that a tenant should be allowed to place his case before such a council, we are asking that he should be allowed to place it before the elected representatives in that area. There is no county council or borough council in the country which has not connected with it a small group of men and women dealing intimately with housing problems and meeting the tenants from day to day. Those people are fitted to give advice to the tenants on this matter.
It has been said that the hon. Member for Yardley is asking that the tenants

should be protected from bad landlords. I was amused at the argument that we cannot speak of good and bad landlords, that while a landlord may want to squeeze a little more out, there may be circumstances surrounding it which put a different light on the matter. I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman who used that argument that in the same way you cannot speak of good and bad tenants, and that a tenant may say to his landlord, "Look here, I will pay you 7s. 6d. less every week, but my intentions are of the very best." I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept that argument. Therefore, we can dispense with that sort of cheap, legal frivolity.
This is a question of very great seriousness, and it would not have been raised unless these cases did exist. In Glasgow itself there are 73,000 people living in miserable houses and in insanitary conditions because they cannot pay the rent of this class of house. That is the only reason, and it is not because they do not desire those houses, not because they think them too big, not because they do not want their children to live in better surroundings. The principal barrier before those 73,000 people who live in one-room and one-apartment houses in Glasgow is that they cannot afford the present rents for better houses. Who are the tenants of these houses? They form the majority of the electors in the Hill-head Division of Glasgow. They are the black-coated workers, the men who have to have a respectable appearance and live in a respectable district in order to retain their employment. They are the people who will be most affected by this freedom extended to landlords to charge any increase they like.
I would ask the House to recognise that the alternative to this Clause is to leave to the landlords the power to impose any increase they like. The Clause asks that a tenant should be allowed to place his case before the experts that we know exist in county and borough councils, so that those experts should, if they think it necessary, be allowed to take the case to court. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater said this would involve great legal proceedings, but I do not believe —and I appeal to the common sense of hon. Members on all sides of the House and ask if they believe—that if a tenant submitted his case of overcharge to a local


council of experts, and the council decided that they would take the case to court, that there are half a dozen landlords in the country who would face that charge in the court. Certainly they would not. They would immediately make the concession, in view of the tenant's strength and of the support that he would have. Therefore, on the ground that there is no alternative to this Clause but to leave the landlords of this country with a free hand to charge any increase they like we ask the House to pass this Clause.
Housing is a national problem and should be treated by this House with the utmost stringency and respect and no particular section of the country should be allowed by any Act of Parliament complete freedom to use the urgency of this question to their own pecuniary advantage. This new Clause reflects great credit on the members who brought it forward. It is something for hon. Members who come from a Tory stronghold to bring forward such a proposal. It is very seldom that we get from Liberal or Tory strongholds legislation which gives the ordinary people any advantage. It is a pleasing change for us to be able to support a proposal of hon. Members opposite and I ask hon. Gentlemen who believe in giving the tenants some protection to support it.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Broad: The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom- Johnson) seemed to think the county court would be crowded by the large number of cases that would be brought for its decision. In most of these working-class areas where this class of property is situated, there are rows of 100 houses, or perhaps areas of 1,000 houses similar in character, and one case taken to the court would give a decision for the whole of the houses. I want to deal with the principle of a fair rent as applied to smaller houses. I can understand that in the years after the War everybody wanted to get back to pre-War conditions, with ideas of Free Trade and allowing supply and demand to settle prices, and the idea that if a higher price were charged for an article than was justified by its cost of replacement it would stimulate further production and so bring about an equilibrium. We have long passed those days. Nearly every

Bill that has come before the House since 1931 has been concerned with prices in the interests of the profit maker. We have just been dealing with a Bill to restrict prices for bacon so as to increase profits. We have an Act of Parliament which gives a Milk Board—not a court, but a concern of interested people—power to fine any of their members£100 a day for selling milk under price.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Broad: I am not going to pursue that point except as an analogy. When it comes to rents, the Government say that it is against their principles to control profiteering and to keep prices down to a reasonable level. This new Clause is an attempt to introduce legislation against profiteering in houses. Many people are concerned about the old type of weekly property owner who was often a tradesman who had invested his life savings in a few houses against his old age. We have a different type of landlord now. It is a type of small moneylender who has been restricted in his operations and is finding a new outlet for his capital and his rapacity in buying up houses wholesale and offering to the owners prices which would not be justified by the return of controlled rents. Those are the people who are creating so much distress and misery in our working-class areas, those who by hook or crook get out the tenants and then raise the rents.
We have heard of instances from Glasgow and other industrial areas, and I can speak with a knowledge of London, which has had a great influx of industries, not only new industries but industries which have moved down from the north. We have still a great famine of houses, and small houses in my district which pre-war were let at 8s. a week, including rates, and for which the controlled rent to-day would be a little over 11s., are being let, when they become decontrolled, for 25s. a week to people with three or four children whose wages do not come to more than 50s. or 55s. a week, when allowance has been made for lost time, holidays and the rest. This is blood-sucking. Decent working-class families will not have families unless they can get a house with accommodation for their children at a reasonable rent. Wives are going out to work. when they ought


not to have to do so, in order to satisfy the rapacity of landlords. Profiteering in houses is going on to a disgraceful extent, but yet, in the name of not interfering with the operations of supply and demand and with the right of the property owner to do what he likes, this Government, which can devise elaborate schemes for raising the price of food against the people, will not move a hand to save the people who are being bled to death by profiteering landlords. In the end those landlords will be a disaster to this country through the effect which they will have upon the population and upon the spirit of our people.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going a good way beyond the subject of the new Clause.

Mr. Broad: I thought I was in order, but your judgment is perhaps better than mine. My argument was intended to show that the profiteering which is going on and which this Clause would restrict is a danger to the country to-day. If the Minister does not like the exact machinery of the Clause he could accept the principle of the fair rent court, so that this extensive profiteering might be restricted in some way. He should show some zeal for the people who are suffering today from the excessive price of their food, as a result of Government action, and restrict these excessive rents.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 189.

NEW CLAUSE.— (Control of business premises.)

(1) As from the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, the principal Acts and the Act of 1933 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Section two of the Act of 1923, apply to any premises used for business, trade, or professional purposes or for the public service of which the rateable value on the appointed day did not exceed

(a) in the metropolitan police district or the City of London, forty-five pounds;

(b) in Scotland, forty-five pounds;
(c) elsewhere, thirty-five pounds;

as they apply to a dwelling-house, and as though reference to "dwelling-house," "house," and "dwelling" included references to any such premises, but the principal Acts, and the Act of 1933 and this Act in their application to such premises shall have effect subject to the following modifications:

(a) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (h) and the proviso thereto in the First Schedule to the Act of 1933:


(h) the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for business, trade, or professional purposes or for the public service, and the Court is satisfied that alternative accommodation, reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects, is available.

(b) Paragraph (g) of the said Schedule shall not apply;

(c) Sections nine and ten of the Act of 1920 shall not apply.

(2) The application of the principal Acts, the Act of 1933, and this Act, to such premises as aforesaid shall not extend to a letting or tenancy in any market or fair where the rent or conditions of tenancy are controlled or regulated by or in pursuance of any statute or charter.—[Mr. Charles Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Charles Brown: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The issue raised by this Clause is a relatively simple one. Having regard to an experience a few weeks ago, when I moved the Second Reading of a Bill which hon. Members opposite said would seriously damage private traders, I am expecting to have their support on this occasion because not infrequently they pose as the friends of the small trader and, therefore, when we want to do the small trader a good turn I think we are entitled to their support in the Lobby. There is no doubt that very many small traders have suffered considerably from the fact that their properties were decontrolled some 17 years ago. When the matter was before the Committee my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) made a very good case for the recontrolling of the type of premises referred to in the Clause. It cannot be said that the Minister used any arguments against this proposal, but he made some excuses, which is rather a different thing. Incidentally he agreed that my right hon. Friend had made a case which clearly showed that some people were dealing with properties occupied by small traders in a way which could rightly be described as very unjust and unfair and that certain of them deserved imprisonment. He went on to make a couple of excuses as to why he could not accept the proposal. He said:
In effect it proposes to recontrol shop property and offices which, as a matter of fact, have been free from control for some 17 years and which during that time must have changed hands very frequently indeed."

—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 5th April, 1938; col. 244.]
As I said a moment ago, that cannot be regarded as a reason for refusing to accept this proposal, though the Minister may regard it as a very good excuse. In the intervening years many hon. Members could bring forward illustrations to show that injustices and hardships have occurred as a result of the action that was then taken. They continue, and in some respects they are increasing. Therefore, I think we are justified in asking for recontrol of these premises up to the limit of the rateable value specified in the Clause. The Minister cannot be making the excuse I have just quoted because he does not believe in restriction, for he is a member of a Government that, all the time it has been in office, has been imposing restrictions of one kind or another on something. Therefore, if it had been a matter of principle with him that no restrictions of any kind should be imposed on people, he would long ago have resigned from the Cabinet. Obviously, therefore, it is not a matter of principle so far as he is concerned. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not have remained a member of the Government if he took that view, and, therefore, I hope he will not adopt that attitude to-night when he is replying on the Clause. For him there cannot be any matter of principle involved in the issue which it raises. He gave another reason that I should like to quote for not accepting the Clause. He said:
I have never known it put forward in the policy or programme of any Government that we should begin to control shop property even of a small character in this country."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT (Standing Committee A), 5th April, 1938; col. 244.]
Is it any reason for not doing a thing that it has never been put forward in the programme of a Government? Have not right hon. Gentlemen opposite done many things that were not put forward in their programme? That cannot be a reason for not doing a particular thing. But this Government is a unique Government; it is not bound by any programme, by any precedent, or by any principle. It can break all rules and all principles, and "get away with it" every time. Therefore, I contend that the Minister to-night, when he turns down this proposal, as he probably will, cannot do it on the basis of principle, because he has always been


supporting in the Lobby restrictions of one kind or another. He will not be doing it, either, because he has not sacrificed over and over again the principles of the political philosophy in which he used to believe, but in which he no longer believes. Over his head I think I can justly appeal to all hon. Members opposite who sing the praises of the private trader, who tell us over and over again that they wish specially to care for the private trader. Here he is in hundreds being injured in various parts of the country, owing to the fact that his premises are not controlled in any way. I invite hon. Members to join us in giving his some measure of protection to-night.

Mr. Ede: I beg to second the Motion.

11.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: With a glimpse of prophetic vision, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) apprehended that my right hon. Friend would probably, as he called it, desire to turn down this Clause. I am afraid that that prophetic vision was only too accurate. I a m on my feet to give reasons, which I hope will commend themselves to every Member of the House, why this particular Clause should not be added to the Bill. What this Clause proposes to do is to re-control shop property, offices, and premises for professional purposes and the public services.
Broadly speaking, the Rent Restrictions Acts were passed to protect men in their dwellings, and not in their livelihoods. It is true that one exception was made, in the case of the small man who had his livelihood at his dwelling, who lived at his shop. The curious thing is that it is against that remaining element that all the representations that have been received by the Marley Committee and the Ridley Committee have been directed. So far from there being any evidence in favour of the type of Clause which the hon. Member has moved, all the representations have been made with a view to removing that anomaly, which gives an unfair advantage to the man living over his shop against the man who has to have a lockup shop. Just for a short time there was control of business premises. That disappeared in 1921, and for 17 years there has been no control of business premises, other than the very limited kind

that I have described, and that has been the subject of complaining representations.
There is nothing to be said for this Clause. It proposes to put the clock back, to re-control property and offices, which were decontrolled 17 years ago, and which in the meantime have probably changed hands umpteen times—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order! "—shall I say, have had many variations of tenancies during that time? The fortunes of the occupants have changed; and, as I have shown, the policy of Parliament has been not to extend the existing anomalies. There have been complaints that even the slender thread that still remains should not be allowed to remain; that it is hardly fair to shopkeepers who have lock-up shops. There is nothing to be said for the Clause, and I hope the House will be unanimous in rejecting it.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Montague: The Solicitor-General deals with this Clause in a very cavalier fashion. He makes the statement that there is nothing to be said for it, and lets it go at that. I remember the discussion to which the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) referred this evening, on the question of municipal trading. I remember the sobs in the throats of hon. Members opposite about the woes of small traders. One could almost see the tears flowing down the cheeks of men whose pockets, in many cases, were filled with dividends from firms which were crushing and suppressing the small traders. But they thought it good enough, just as Conservative local authorities think it good enough, to make out that the Labour party were the one party opposed to small traders. We have a body of gentlemen in my district who call themselves the local chamber of commerce. They are nothing of the kind. They are only concerned with selling a few more goods than they otherwise would. There is nothing of the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool about them. That body was very concerned about the representative of West Islington (Mr. Montague) speaking in favour of municipal trading, or granting powers to trade municipally, which would have the effect, they said, of crushing the small trader, who had been the butt of the Labour party for many years. As the hon. Member for Mansfield said, hon.


Members opposite have now an opportunity of standing up for the small trader and voting for the small trader.
The Solicitor-General says that it is a reactionary Clause; that it is putting the clock back. The party opposite are competent authorities on putting the clock back. I am not concerned about the fact that the control of small business premises was raised 17 years ago. There is no reason in the world why even if it is a question of livelihood and not of a dwelling the blackmailing landlords should be able to injure small traders any more than they injure people who are living in ordinary dwelling-houses. If hon. Members will look at the Clause they will see that the limits of rent bring only the very small traders into it. It does not touch the ordinary shopkeeper but the small trader, who will be made bankrupt by a little increase of rent. We are always told that, when there is an election. A great deal of capital was made at the last London County Council election about the rising rates crushing the small shopkeeper. It is the type of small shopkeeper who lives dangerously from the commercial point of view, who is very often on the verge of bankruptcy under the system under which we live, that we seek to help by this Clause. These people are under the heel of unscrupulous landlords because they are out of control. They were under control before and there is no logical reason why they should not come into control again, and we claim that that should be done in order to assist the small trader.
When we defend municipal trading and co-operative societies we are merely accepting the fact that in the development of modern commerce big capital wins, and that what is good enough for big combinations of capital, in retail or any other kind of trade, is good enough for co-operative societies and municipalities. You cannot help the spread of big business, chain stores, and large accumulations of retail shops under one directorate; but we can help the small trader by voting for this Clause, and I would ask the Government to hel them by accepting the Clause and incorporating it in the Bill. I tell the Solicitor-General and the Minister of Health that if they will not do that

and if they turn the Clause down, I will tell my constituents and my Chamber of Commerce what they have done.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Liddall: I accept the challenge of the hon. Member opposite and I declare that we on these benches look after the interests of the private trader. I am certain that had the Mover of the new Clause not been so defiant he would have found the Solicitor-General not treating him perhaps as lightly as he did. I do not accept the description of landlords as blackmailing landlords. I do not believe that there are landlords in this country who use blackmail. They have the right, as we all have the right, to put forward their proposals as to what return they ought to get for any outlay on their property. But I do say that there is something in this new Clause. We on this side of the House are permitted to express our own opinions and to appeal to the Government to accept a new Clause or an Amendment. That is our privilege in the ranks of the Conservative party—a privilege of which hon. Members opposite of the Socialist party are deprived. I speak on behalf of thousands of small shopkeepers and I have in mind, particularly, the retail newsagent, confectioner and tobacconist. In many cases, the rateable value of his property is not assessed higher than£20.
If we leave the Bill as it is in this respect, there will be countless cases in which these men will be called on to pay some slight addition to their rent. Even a slight addition, I know, will be a real hardship in hundreds of cases. It is on that ground that I ask the Government to consider this point. It is not a question of threatening the Government, or saying that landlords are guilty of blackmail. But I ask the Minister to consider all these hundreds and thousands of small shopkeepers in England. I am not concerned about Scotland or Wales but I am concerned about the people in England who may, possibly, be affected by this Measure and I hope their case will receive further consideration.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 187.

Division 178.
AYES.
10.43 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Groves, T. E.
Pearson, A.


Ammon, C. G.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.



Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Barnes, A. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ridley, G


Barr, J.
Hayday, A.
Riley, B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson. J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Or. A. (Bermondsey)


Broad. F. A.
Hollins, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton. T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Butcher, H. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cape, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cassells, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, C.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Summerskill, Edith


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar. G.
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lee, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Tomlinson, G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Foot, D. M.
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Mander, G. le M.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Salt and Mr. Cartland.




NOES.


Acland-Troyle, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Patrick, C. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Furness, S. N.
Peat, C. U.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Petherick, M.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Assheton, R.
Gledhill, G.
Pilkington, R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

Gluckstein, L. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thaner)
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N W)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Harbord, A.
Robinson, J. R, (Blackpool)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heilgers, Captain F F A.
Rowlands, G.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rugglcs-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hepworth, J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bull, B. B.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Salmon, Sir I.


Butler, R. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Sandys, E. D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Scott, Lord William


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Selley, H. R.


Channon, H.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Colman, N. C. D.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keeling, E. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Latham, Sir P.
Spens, W. P.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Craven-Ellis, W
Liddall, W. S.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Croom-Jonnson, R. P.
Lloyd, G. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cross, R. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lyons, A. M.
Tate, Mavis C.


Culverwell, C. T.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Titchfield. Marques of


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Denville, Alfred
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Doland, G. F.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McKie, J. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duggan, H. J.
Maitland, A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Eastwood, J. F.
Markham, S. F.
Wells, S. R.


Eckersley, P. T.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Edmondson, Major Sir J
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)



Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ellis, Sir G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Emery, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Errington, E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col A. J.
Wragg, H.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Munro, P.



Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fildes, Sir H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Major


Findlay, Sir E.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Herbert.


Fleming, E. L.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Division No. 179.
AYES.
11.12 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Muff, G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.


Amman, C. G.
Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pearson, A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hall, G. H, (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Hardie, Agnes
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barr, J.
Hayday, A.
Ridley, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Benson G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bevan, A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bromfield, W.
Hollins, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cassells, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Summerskill, Edith


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lathan, G.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Leach, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Logan, D. G.
Walker, J.


Foot, D. M.
Lunn, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro Jones, G. M.
Maclean, N.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mathers, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Maxton, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—





Mr. Charleton and Mr. Whlteley.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gluckatein, L. H.


Adams S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Gower, Sir R. V.


Albery, Sir Irving
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gritten, W. J. Howard


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Croom-Johnson, R, P.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Apsley, Lord
Cross, R. H.
Guest, Mai. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Assheton, R.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gulverwell, C. T.
Harbord, A.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovll)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bollon)


Balniel, Lord
Denman, Hon. R, D.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Denville, Alfred
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Bernays, R. H.
Doland, G. F.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Boulton, W. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hepworth, J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duggan, H. J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Holmes, J. S.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Eckersley, P. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bull, B. B.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Butcher, H. W.
Ellis, Sir G.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Butler, R. A.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
James, Wing-Commandcr A. W. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Emery. J- F.
Joel, D. J. B.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Errington, E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Keeling, E. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Channon, H.
Fleming, E. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Latham, Sir P.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Colman, N. C. D.
Furness, S. N.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Lloyd, G. W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gledhill, G.
Loftus, P. C.







Lyons, A. M.
Radford, E. A.
Storey, S.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsbotham, H.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark. N.)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


McKie, J. H.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Magnay, T.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Maitland, A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Markham, S. F.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Rowlands, G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Salmon, Sir I.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Salt, E. W.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wells, S. R.


Munro, P.
Sandys, E. D.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Williams, H. C. (Croydon, S.)


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Scott, Lord William
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Selley, H. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shakespeare, G. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Peat, C. U.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wragg, H.


Petherick, M.
Shuts, Colonel Sir J. J
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Pilkington, R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwion)



Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Spens, W. P.
Captain Dugdale and Mr.


Procter, Major H. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Grimston.

NEW CLAUSE.— (Discontinuance of permitted increase in. rent.)

Section two of the Act of 1920 (which provides for permitted increases in rent) is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Stephen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Section 2 of the Act of 1920 permitted an increase in the rents of houses. At that time the Labour party were in Opposition. The position now as compared with 192o is much worse. These houses are a quarter of a century older and the people owning them are still being allowed these increases in rent. The Marley Committee regarded the increases as the maximum, and evidently thought that the maximum would not necessarily be paid. I do not know of any case where the owner of property is taking less than the permitted increase—the maximum has become the minimum. I want the position to be on the basis of pre-war rents for pre-war houses. I know that this might mean that in a small number of cases owners of property would get less than they were getting in 1914, but that would not distress me unduly. I have put down the new Clause in order to force the issue. It is high time these increases were discontinued and that there was a reduction in rents. The cost of commodities has been steadily rising; people have to pay more for food and are not able to pay big rents for what in Scotland particularly are rotten, rat-infested

houses. They are being asked to pay these increased rents for rotten slums. I protest against the way in which the people in these poor working-class houses are being treated. They have not been given the houses they ought to have. I repeat once more the slogan of pre-war rents for pre-war houses.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not propose to make a speech, although I know that frequently the importance of the subject is judged by the length of the speech. I want to make just a formal speech, but it must be regarded as being in inverse ratio to the importance I attach to the Motion. The importance I attach to the Motion is infinitely greater than the length of the speech I propose to make.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: My hon. Friends and I intend to support this new Clause, as we supported it when it was moved in the Standing Committee. We do so on the following grounds. First, the 25 per cent. increase allowed for repairs in innumerable cases is not being expended on repairs, and therefore, the recipients are guilty of extracting from their tenants an increased sum every year to which they are neither morally nor, in my opinion, legally entitled. Secondly, even if it were the case that the landlords were expending this 25 per cent. increase on repairs, the fact remains that since 1920,


when the figure of 25 per cent. was estimated to be an adequate amount to give to the landlords, the cost of repairs has fallen remarkably. It is difficult to get precise figures, but the only evidence tendered to the Ridley Committee was tendered by the Scottish Office, and they declared that since 1920, labour jobbing costs have fallen from 3s. 3d. to 2s. 4d. per hour; slates have fallen from £12 5s. to £10 15s.; cement from 120s. 6d. to 45s.; timber from 6s. per cubic foot to 2s. 10d.; and lead from £50 per ton to £27 5s. a ton. With prices and costs falling, even if it was justifiable to give the owner an increase of 25 per cent. for repairs in 1920, it is no longer justifiable to give him the same amount now.
Thirdly, the owner was given an allowance of 10 per cent. for increased mortgage interest. Any number of them have never expended one penny on mortgage interest, and some of them have had no increase in their mortgage interest. Fourthly, they were allowed a 5 per cent. increased yield upon their capital invested in the property. Since 1920, it will be admitted, the rate of interest on gilt-edged securities has fallen certainly by from 1½ per cent. to 1¾ per cent., and there is no justification now for the increased yield of 5 per cent. I say that in Scotland alone, where the landlord has to meet out of his own pocket increased rates as compared with 1920, he has a grievance, but that grievance does not exist in the case of the English landlords, who are operating on a different rating system. Apart from that, I believe that the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is justified in every way, and I and my hon. Friends intend to vote for it in the Division Lobby.

11.29 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I propose to make only a brief reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I hope that he will not consider that I am showing any disrespect to him, but he will remember that I explained the position of the Government at some length when we dealt with this matter in the Standing Committee. The matter was very carefully considered then, and the new Clause was rejected by 22 votes to 9. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the object is to restrict the rent

which can be charged for a whole house to the pre-war rent. This matter was carefully examined, in the first instance, by the Marley Committee, which looked into the propriety of the 40 per cent. total of permitted increase in rent and found the increase justified. The matter was again examined by the Ridley Committee, which pointed out, in paragraph 106, the fact that, as circumstances had not materially changed since 1931, the conclusions of the Marley Committee were still valid. The permitted increases included the increase in rates chargeable on the house in 1914. That increase, of course, does not inure to the benefit of the landlord, because he has to pay it over to the local authority. Therefore, if this Clause were adopted by the House in its present form, it would mean that the landlord of a small controlled house would in fact obtain substantially less rent for it than he did in 1914. For that and for other reasons, I must ask the House to reject the Clause.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: It would be one of the most desirable things that this House could do if it were to pass this Clause and bring the rent of controlled houses hack to the pre-war rent. Any hon. Member who has gone round about working-class districts and who has discussed the matter in any way with housewives. must surely appreciate the amount of worry, amounting almost to agony, that is being experienced in district after district on this question of rents, hot only on account of the fact that the rents have increased, but also on account of the fear of what is going to happen. This is one of the heaviest burdens of any householder. If hon. Members consider the income of the average working-class householder, no one can deny that the prewar rent is the absolute maximum that should be taken out of that income, but the Minister says that the landlord should be given an increased rent because he puts the rates on to the rent. That may be a desirable thing from the landlord's point of view, but it shows the big consideration of the Minister and those associated with him for the landlord class.
The right hon. Gentleman shows the very greatest consideration for the landlord. In his view, it is justifiable that the landlord should put the rates on to,


the rent. But what consideration has the right hon. Gentleman shown for the poor fellow who is paying the rent? He has not only to pay the rent, but he pays also the rates, and rates on rates, in Scotland at any rate. When you allow the landlord to put the rates on to the rent, the tenant has to pay not only rates on the required rent, but also rates on the rates. Have you any consideration for the tenant? None at all. An hon. Member said to-night that he objected to landlords being called blackmailers and said that they would not rob the tenants. Are we supposed to accept that seriously? Does any hon. Member on the other side really believe that the landlord would not rob the tenant? Why was rent restriction introduced if it were not that the landlord was robbing the tenant? Thousands of Acts have been passed to keep the robbers from completely fleecing the working-class.
The Minister of Health has a great responsibility for the health of the people, and he knows that nothing plays such havoc with health as worry. I am prepared to take the Minister to any working-class district, where, if he were to say in any home, "are we prepared to support a Clause that will restore pre-War rents?" he would see worry flee at once from the household. If he wants health he should keep down rents, and one of the best ways to do that is to pass this new Clause. I was one of a number of people who were responsible for the campaign which brought about rent restriction because we saw the most ter-

rible conditions reigning in the area in which we lived. The Minister of Health should not worry about the landlords; none of them have as yet had to go to the public assistance committees. They will make good all right. As Minister of Health, however, he should consider the great mass of the people, the men and women who keep industry and the homes going. It is on them that the well-being of the population depends.

Mr. Magnay: Will the hon. Member address his remarks to the Labour councils which exercise a means test before they let houses at far bigger rent——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I do not think that that can possibly arise on this new Clause.

Mr. Gallacher: The lack of intelligence that is demonstrated on the other side is amazing. We are discussing a problem that affects the Minister of Health more than any other problem—the problem of overcoming the declining population and building up the health of the community, and I say that one of the most important items is to safeguard the family budget. The way to do that is to keep down rents. So I will give the Minister a slogan for his health campaign—"Down with rents and up with the health of the population."

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 187.

Division No. 180.]
AYES.
[11.39 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ede, J. C.
Hopkin, D.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jagger, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Frankel, D,
John, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Gallacher, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gardner, B. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Kelly, W. T.


Banfield, J. W.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Kirby, B. V.


Barnes, A. J.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Barr, J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lathan, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lawson, J. J.


Benson, G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Leach, W.


Bevan, A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Lee, F.


Bromfield, W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Logan, D. G.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Groves, T. E.
Lunn, W.


Buchanan, G.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Burke, W. A.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
McEntee, V. La T.


Cape. T.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maclean, N.


Cassells, T.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Maxton, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Heyday, A.
Milner, Major J.


Daggar, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Muff, G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Oliver, G. H.


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Hollins, A.
Paling, W.




Parkinson, J. A.
Silverman, S. S.
Viant, S. P.


Pearson, A.
Simpson, F. B.
Watson, W. McL.


Pethick-Lawrence Rt. Han. F. W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Westwood, J.


Price, M. P.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Pritt, D. N.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Sorensen, R. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Ridley, G.
Stephen, C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Riley, B.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'-le-Sp'ng)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Ritson, J.
Summerskill, Edith



Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS OR H A S.—


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Tinker, J. J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Soxton. T. M.
Tomlinson, G.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Furness, S. N.
Petherick, M.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Pilkington, R.


Albery, Sir Irving
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otloy)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Gledhill, G.
Procter, Major H. A.


Apsley, Lord
Gluckstein, L. H.
Radford, E. A.


Assheton, R.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Folham, E.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Atholl, Duchess [...]
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Guest, Lleut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Guest, Maj. Hon.O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Balniel, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bernays, R. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Boulton, W. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rowlands, G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harbord, A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Hely-Hutehinson, M. R.
Salmon, Sir I.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Salt, E. W.


Bull, B. B.
Hepworth, J.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Sandys, E. D.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holdsworth, H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J S.
Scott, Lord William


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Selley, H. R.


Channon, H.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Colman, N. C. D.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Colvllle, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Joel, D. J. B.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooper. Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Kerr, Colonel C. I (Montrose)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottlsh Univs.)
Spens. W. P.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Latham, Sir P.
Storey, S.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Cross, R. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lloyd, G. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Culverwell, C. T.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Loftus, P. C.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lyons, A. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Dcland, G. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MaCorquodale, M. S.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Duggan, H. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duncan, J. A. L.
McKie, J. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Eastwood, J. F.
Magnay, T.
Water house, Captain C.


Eckersley, P. T.
Maitland, A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
White, H. Graham


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Emery, J F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Errington, E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wise, A. R.


Fildes, Sir H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Womerslay, Sir W. J.


Findlay, Sir E.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fleming, E. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wragg, H.


Foot, D. M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fox, Sir G. W. G
Palmer, G. E. H.



Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Peat, C. U.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Munro and Mr. Grimston.


Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-morrow.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [6TH APRIL].

Resolutions reported.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FO REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1938.

CLASS VII.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £278,650, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3rst day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of Labour and Health buildings, Great Britain."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £95,285, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of miscellaneous legal buildings, including the whole additional cost of a new Sheriff Court House at Edinburgh."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding, £1,381,265, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including historic buildings, ancient monuments, Brompton Cemetery and certain housing estates."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £157,185, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of public buildings overseas."

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,294,470, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and telegraph buildings in Great Britain, certain post offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with boats and launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department."

Orders of the Day — TRADE MARKS BILL [Lords.]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND DRUGS BILL [Lords.]

Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [5th April] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on the Food and Drugs Bill [Lords], be now considered.—[Captain Margesson.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of Seven Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the Food and Drugs Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

Committee nominated of, — Mr. Bernays, Mr. Duncan, Sir Francis Fremantle, Major Owen, Mr. Richards, Mr. Ridley, and Mr. H. G. Williams.—[Captain Margesson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — DOGS ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL (changed to "DOGS (AMEND MENT) BILL").

Orders of the Day — POOR'S ALLOTMENT IN HANWELL BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Lewis Jones.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.